179. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on Laos to the Department of State0
Confe 617. From Harriman.
MacDonald called meeting yesterday to discuss future conference procedures with Pushkin, Chang Han-fu and myself. All agreed new conference procedure for discussion in smaller groups and that discussion should be on general subjects covering all pertinent items included in drafts. MacDonald asked whether Pushkin and Chang Han-fu believed conference agreement could be reached. Both gave assurances they instructed to achieve agreement if West serious. As indication of good faith and intentions, Chang Han-fu pointed out Chen-yi remained Geneva two months much longer than any other foreign ministers. He questions our intentions because of “facts in Laos” complaining large build-up of RLG and attacks conducted from pockets behind lines. I, of course, countered with reports we had of continued Soviet airlift and maintained RLG only defending themselves and taking counter-measures when attacked. If national union government formed, vitally important to have agreement on integration forces under one command to avoid continuation such incidents. Chang Han-fu intimated that unless this done prior rainy season, renewal serious military hostilities will result. Both Soviets and Chinese argued conference could agree without awaiting formation union government, maintaining that agreement Geneva would help Princes. I took opposing position pointing to Communist contention infringement of Lao sovereignty by provisions we considered protected sovereignty. These could only be settled in consultation new government. MacDonald concluded that both sides would have to give and take to reach agreement.
In less serious talk, I said to Pushkin that many of Chinese Communists had learned their Marxianism [sic] in Paris which perhaps explained some of the present difficulties between Moscow and Peking. Of course, he denied differences and only our wishful thinking. I asked Chang Han-fu where he had learned his Communism. He replied in California as a student at Berkeley about 30 years ago. He was revolted by capitalism causing misery of depression and studied Marxianism from books in library. At this moment, he showed real bitterness toward the United States, and I felt he must have had some unfortunate personal experiences in California because of anti-Chinese attitude at that time.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 751J.00/9–1261. Secret; Limited Distribution.↩