MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: Library of Congress
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
• Release Decision: RIFLIM
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: January 11, 2017
• Document Release Date: April 14, 2010
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 6, 1972
• Content Type: MEMO

No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
1P 1. --- " s60-3 W
TOP SECRET /SENSITIVE
EXCLUSIVELY EYES ONLY September 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION
PARTICIPANTS: Ambassador Huang Hua, PRC Ambassador to the UN
Mrs. Shih Yen-hua, Interpreter
Peter W. Rodman, NSC Staff
DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, September 6, 1972, 7:20-7:45 p.m.
PLACE: PRC Mission to the UN, New York City
The Ambassador said he had two messages for me. I started to take out
a note pad, but he said there was no need. He handed me the two messages
[a long reply to our communications of August 28 and 30, at Tab A, and a
short inquiry about Senator Mansfield's proposed visit, Tab B] and asked
me to read them through. I did so, and said I would see that these were
reported to Dr. Kissinger immediately. The Ambassador said he had
nothing additional to convey.
The meeting was as cordial as ever. He asked about Dr. Kissinger's travel
plans, and I mentioned that he would be leaving Saturday morning for Munich
instead of Friday morning as originally planned and would be seeing German
leaders but not attending the Olympics. I said I understood an appointment
had been set up for Friday between Dr. Kissinger and the Ambassador.
I commented that Dr. Kissinger very much wanted to see the Ambassador
before he left on his trip. The Ambassador understood it would be at the
former location, and I said yes, that was my understanding. The Ambassador
said, "Dr. Kissinger is delaying his departure in order to come here?"
I simply repeated that Dr. Kissinger very much wanted to see the Ambassador
before he left.
We had one cup of tea, and I thanked the Ambassador for his hospitality
but said I didn't want to keep him any longer.
ON-FILE NSC RELEASE
INSTRUCTIONS APPLY
TOP SECRET /SENSITIVE
EXCLUSIVELY EYES ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
- uanw to nod-
man by Amb. Huang
The Chinese side has the following comments with regard
to the three U.S. messages of August 28 and 30, 1972:
1. From the U.S., messages it seems that the U.S.
side thinks it has the right to blockade and bomb the Democratic
Republic of Viet Nam and attack vessels or vehicles of all kinds
transporting supplies to Viet Nam. This stand cannot possibly
be accepted by China. Such actions of the U.S. side are an
encroachment upon the sovereignty of other countries and a
violation of the freedom of international trade and navigation,
and run counter to the principles jointly affirmed by both
sides in the Sino-U.S. Joint Communique. It must be pointed
out that, like violations of the Chinese border, attacks on
Chinese ships cannot be tolerated. Chinese ships are trans-
porting supplies to the Democratic' Republic of Viet Nam; this
is China's sovereign right and no other country has the right
to intervene.
2. None of the elements that were described as
leading to the August 22 incident in two of the U.S. messages,
conform to the actual facts. We recognize that the U.S.-Govern-
ment has made investigations on all the incidents raised in
the charges and protesjs lodged by us. But the answers have
generally been words of regret from above but allegations
from below that there was cause for raising the matters but
no conclusive evidence after investigations. Anyway, as the
U.S. side on many occasions stated that incidents such as those
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
2.
raised by China would not be permitted to reoccur, in every
case involving infringement of China's sovereignty and harm or
loss of Chinese lives, it was not until the evidence was found
to be truly reliable through repeated verifications that we
advanced charges against the U.S. side. For instance, from
0804 hours, July 15, 1972 (local time), one U.S. aircraft
intruded for three minutes into the Changcheng area, Hainan
Island, China. Having ascertained that it was really a
tanker aircraft and that the weather was bad, we lodged no
protest with the U.S. side. During his meeting with Ambassador
Huang on July 26, Dr. Kissinger also attested the fact that
this incident indeed occurred. And at the same meeting, Dr.
Kissinger mentioned incidents of Chinese ships firing at U.S.
aircraft. We had given strict orders that no firing was per-
missible unless attacked or bombed. Precisely because of this,
and because the August 22 case had been found so serious through
verification, we could not but have recourse to an open protest.
It is regrettable that in the investigation report delivered on
August 30, the U.S. side continues to allege that the boat was
a logistic craft rather than a lifeboat. We hereby point out:
a. That the lifeboat was flying the national flag of
the People's Republic of China was a fact. The flag should
logically have been identified since the U.S. side admitted
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
w
3.
in its message that the U.S. aircraft made two low level
identification passes before the bombing. The said flag
(66cm x 44cm) as well as parts of the bombed boat have now
been recovered from the water. Such factual evidence cannot
be denied.
b. The lifeboat was not carrying any cargo, it only
had one box (34cm x 33cm x 12.5cm) of film reels which were
to be shown to the seamen. Obviously, this can hardly be
taken as proof that the boat was a "logistic craft".
c. When the boat was bombed, it was moving between the
two Chinese merchant ships (Hongqi Nos. 160 and 151), at a
distance of 1,970 meters from the shore. The location alleged
by the U.S. side was inaccurate. For the U.S. side to surmise
that the boat was a "logistic craft" on the basis of the
alleged location of the boat between the shore line and Hon
Ngu Island, the inshore area being mined, is indeed far-fetched.
The U.S. side has now admitted that photography on August
19 and 25 prove that the Chinese merchant ship "Hongqi 151"
originally carried two lifeboats, of which one has been missing
.since the bombing. Yet, the U.S. side has tried to create
an excuse by asserting that there was no flag so as to shirk
responsibility. The Chinese side cannot but express deep
regret at this.
3. The U.S. side is clear about the Chinese Government's
stand on the Indochina question. The Chinese side has on more
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
4.
than one occasion stated that so long as the war continues,
no matter in what form, China will firmly support and assist
the Indochinese people in their war of resistance to the end.
The Chinese side has said frankly many times that the U.S.
persistence in its bombing and mining of the Democratic Re-
public of Viet Nam and in the "Vietnamization" of the war would
definitely be of no help to an early ending of the conflict.
On the contrary, it will only drag on the conflict and tie
the U.S. Government itself down in an unfavourable position.
The Chinese side hopes that on the question of Indochina, the
U.S. Government would consider the problem in a broader frame-
work and take the long view, give vigilant consideration to
the existence of the other outside force, and withdraw at
an early date all armed forces of the United States and its
followers from Indochina and first of all from Viet Nam, and
let the three Indochinese peoples solve their own problems by
themselves. The Chinese side has on many questions made allowance
for the circumstances the U.S. Government is in now. However,
the responsibility for the expansion of the conlict in Indo-
china does not lie with our side. We have no alternative but
to adhere to principles.
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
 -;, No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3
On another subject, will it not affect your bi-partisan
relationship if Mansfield comes alone for a visit? Samdech
Sihanouk has expressed that Mansfield's speech in the Senate
is not acceptable. Please tell us explicitly whether there
is any other intention in Mansfield's proposed visit, so
that a reply may be considered.
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/04/14: LOC-HAK-461-5-1-3