Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, China, Volume II

311. Telegram From the Secretary of State to the Department of State¹

Geneva, July 19, 1955—4 p.m.

Dulte 23. Eyes only Acting Secretary and Assistant Secretary Robertson. Macmillan gave us this morning copies 2 messages from O’Neill:²

Text first message:

“Chou En-lai was unable to see me until 4:30 p.m. today when I carried out instructions in your telegrams Nos. 1 and 2, leaving with him text³ given in your telegram No. 2.

We ran into trouble over ‘Peiping’ on which Chou En-lai expressed considerable indignation. The Americans were unreasonable in seeking to use this word; he meant, of course, their rulers, not the American people. Peking had been known as Peking for hundreds of years. Why should Americans seek to impose their will on other people in this matter? He thought the British, as a matter of courtesy, should have declined even to transmit a proposal for using this word to the Chinese Government.

I replied that the word the Americans proposed to describe this town was the name which has been current in America of it. They were not seeking to impose use of this word on anyone but themselves. They did not expect the Chinese Government to use the word ‘Peiping’ in any English text or statement they might issue.

Chou En-lai continued to complain, saying that though China had no monarchy they always described the British Government as Her Majesty’s Government. I pointed out that these two Governments recognized and were in relation to each other.

After a good deal more grumbling, and after I had pointed out other changes in the new American text, Chou En-lai eventually said he would study the matter further and let me have his considered views. He thought it unlikely that it would now be possible to issue announcement at the time proposed by Mr. Dulles, namely 2 a.m. GMT July 20.⁴

On the new date proposed for the first meeting, he said only that he regretted America had been unable to accept his proposal, but would give this point further consideration also.

He asked me to report to you the feeling he had expressed but to tell you that he was grateful to you for having transmitted Mr. Dulles’ message”.

Text second message:

“My immediately preceding telegram:

United States talks with China.

We must now await the considered Chinese view. But if it were acceptable to America we could, I think, overcome these complications of geographical nomenclature by a formula such as:

‘As a result of outlines exchanged between Mr. Dulles and Mr. Chou En-lai through diplomatic channels, it has been agreed, etc’.”

I have given following⁵ to Macmillan:

“Please inform O’Neill as follows:

‘If Chou En-lai after reflection rejects proposed text, we would accept as alternative ‘As a result of messages exchanged through the diplomatic channels of the United Kingdom, it has been agreed, etc’”.

Unless Department sees objection, I would be prepared to use the spelling “Peking” in our release since this is in fact now the spelling adopted by those in authority in the City.⁶

Assume no release July 20 unless we hear in time Chinese accept text and new date first meeting.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–1955. Top Secret; Niact. Repeated for information to London eyes only for Aldrich.
2. The two messages, unsigned and undated, are Ibid., Conference Files: Lot 63 D 123, CF 515.
3. Apparently the message transmitted in Document 306.

4. Dulles proposed July 20 as the release date in response to a British message of July 17, The message and Dulles’ response were reported in Dulte 14 from Geneva, dated July 17, which reads as follows:

   “British have informed us they just received message from O’Neill reporting that Chou En-lai unable receive him today (Sunday). Meantime O’Neill enquired whether in English text proposed announcement there was any latitude which would permit use of ‘Peking’ as opposed ‘Peiping’ which is in present text. Also in view delay in communicating with Chou En-lai O’Neill raised question of timing proposed announcement.

   “In reply we have informed British text should remain as proposed. As for timing of announcement, we have told British we would be agreeable to release 2 a.m. GMT July 20.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–1755)

5. The unsigned message, dated July 19, is Ibid., Conference Files: Lot 63 D 123, CF 515.
6. Tedul 27 to Geneva, July 19, 1955, commented that Robertson and the Office of Chinese Affairs believed that the spelling issue although it was in itself insignificant and of small consequence to the American people, had symbolic significance to the Chinese, as shown by Chou’s reaction to “Peiping”; sudden U.S. acceptance of Chinese Communist nomenclature would add to Taipei’s suspicions and fears. It recommended the use of the compromise language proposed by Dulles for the proposed identic announcement and added, “As for our own follow-up press release, we see no reason why Chou En-lai should be allowed to dictate change in our nomenclature established for over twenty years.” (Ibid., Central Files, 611.93/7–1955)