Page:Kissinger's Trip (3) - November 25-29, 1974(Gerald Ford Library)(1553936).pdf/42

 Habib said we seem to be going in a circle. My statements should break that circle. I suggest you study my statement. As I have stated, we are not saying that these bonds constitute a claim. If my explanation is not satisfactory, let's put the matter to one side now and consider other aspects. There is no hidden meaning in what I have been saying.

Lin said he had listened carefully to Habib's explanation. Habib had said he never raised this issue. Habib responded that he had stated that we are not asking the PRC to accept the bonds as a claim against the PRC, then reiterated there was no hidden meaning in his statements. You can make it an issue if you wish but I have made a clear statement of our views.

Lin said that he did not agree that this is an issue created by the Chinese side. Such a statement is a distortion of the fact. Habib said that he does not wish to pursue the matter. If you do not accept my explanation, let's not pursue it. You can study what I have said and I will study your statements. We can put it aside now and consider it later. However, I have not distorted the facts. Lin reiterated that the US side is creating a side issue and that is not a distortion of the fact because it is in the record. We have explained our position and we stick to it. Habib said that he has explained our position and there is no need to discuss further.

Lin said, "All right," and Tsien added that we will agree to disagree. Habib noted that that often happens.

Lin then said that Habib had raised the question of a definition of the assets. The US side used the wording "designated nationals and special designated nationals." We believe this is also a side issue created by the US side. It was the US side which raised the question of terminology. This is not just a question of terminology. It contains serious political questions. Habib must know the background of the term "designated nationals." It is a product of the hostile attitude of the US Government in 1950. If we still use that term, it would not be in the spirit of the Shanghai Communique. The American side said it would like to find some appropriate term. In the December 22 Aide-Memoire, it still insisted upon the implications of that term. The only change was in method, not essence. So we could not accept the wording.