SECRET
2
2. In light of paragraphs 2 and 3 of your telegram
No.1645 we support your view that return of TA KU LIN
villager was not a breaking point.
3. As regards paragraph 3 of your telegram under
reference we feel considerable doubt whether, because of
risk referred to in your paragraph 4, we should try to
written
get these exchanges on to a routine basis. It seems to
us that a written text would be more likely to require
Peking's detailed endorsement than would an oral
understanding, and that because of risk that written
text would become public the Chinese would feel it
necessary to increase their demands.
4.
We also wonder whether there would not be some risk
in using HSINHUA for dealing with substance of problem,
as opposed to acting as channel of communication simply
for arrangements for meetings. HSINHUA might have
ideas of their own which they could more easily inject
in
than any case of fürther direct exchanges at border.
し
We accept that any future meeting would most certainly
have to be held on Chinese side. But we agree that we
can only consider final tactics in hight of Chinese
reaction to message in your paragraph 1.
5.
With reference to your telegram No.1636, we agree
with line you take and will say nothing.
Issue
(8430 Dd.033246 600m 9/66 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863 SECRET
5
bos Caster
6/11/67
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN