TNAG-0022-FCO40-58-Facilities-for-US-Forces-1968 — Page 106

Cypher/Cat A

SECRET

225

IMMEDIATE PEKING TO FOREIGN OFFICE

Telno 647 8 July 1968

SECRET

Addressed to Foreign Office telegram No. 647 of 8 July Repeated for information to washington, POLAD Singapore and Hong Kong

212

Your telegram No. 1252 to Hong Kong: Naval Visits.

I am grateful for the consideration given in paragraph one of telegram under reference to my comments, in particular the need to take account of the greatly increased Chinese sensitivities and the fact that, genuine or not, Chinese touchiness about the presence of U.S. vessels has produced genuine bad effects. Although

I would greatly prefer visits by large or nuclear ships to be cut off for the time being, I accept that, as you say, it may not be possible altogether to exclude them.

2. I am however puzzled by the first proposal on visits. If we amend the guide lines as suggested in paragraph 2(b) of your telegram we may expect each year visits by six nuclear vessels and possibly as many as nineteen-twenty visits by other potentially controversial ships. I am here assuming a visit lasts five days and that there is a fortnight's interval between the visits, as (203)suggested in Hong Kong telegram No. 739 paragraph 8. In 1966 there

were in all visits by twenty two potentially controversial (including nuclear) ships and in 1967 by twenty five. So that the proposed new level would appear to be only very slightly less than 1966 and 1967. As regards nuclear vessels, it would in fact be considerably higher and would double the 1966 level. If we interpret controversial to exclude ships which are not carriers and are not nuclear (e.g. Boston), then controversial visits for 1966 and 1967 were 14 and 15 respectively which would mean this year we would have a very large increase in all sectors. I notice that in your 223) telegram No. 1262 to Hong Kong you describe visits by "Valley Forge"

"Bonhomme Richard" and "Boston" as "non-controversial".

3. The proposed level or visits would be therefore hardly consistent with the policy considerations set out in first paragraph of your telegram. Even on most reassuring interpretation, we would be only slightly reducing general level and much increasing nuclear visits. This is hardly taking account of Chinese sensitivities or bad effects visits are producing. Nor does it seem the level suggested by [gp.omitted]ing "visits should not altogether exclude large or nuclear vessels" in paragraph 1 of your telegram. Perhaps I have misunderstood proposals.

I should be

1

2.

SECRET

/grateful

RECE

ARCHIVES NO.C -9 JULIPS

HWD 2/1