TNAG-0039-FCO40-75-Border-incidents-with-China-1967 — Page 104

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