|
As I said earlier, it seems to me that we have reached agreement in principle with regard to the items the Director has mentioned and the $17 million which you proposed in an earlier exchange. So the whole issue is to implement the agreement in principle with such tidying up as is needed. This is not a matter of extreme importance or urgency, as the Secretary mentioned this morning, but we hope to get clear that there isn't a difference in principle, as suspected in your note of June 14. I didn't understand that note, but now I think I have a better understanding of what might have led to that note. |
| Lin: | In my opinion, what exists between us is not merely a misunderstanding. What really exists is that the United States side insists on its demand to create some side issues. That is to say, the US side does not stick to the spirit of the understanding reached in February of 1973 to find a package settlement. That is why I think it is a matter of principle. In other words, we have not reached agreement on how to dispose of this question between us, and our stand has been clearly stated in our reply of June 14.
We mentioned last November the transfer of $17 million to the US side that we have drawn from the third country banks. We made a considerable concession in accordance with the general understanding on a political settlement. And we acted upon the understanding that your side thought it would be easy to settle the question of the liability that occurred prior to 1949. But actually your reply in December does not conform to the commitment that you had expressed in November. That is why I say there have been some changes in the manner of your disposing of this question, while in fact you insist upon the unreasonable demands that you put forth. So we have explicitly stated that we cannot but withdraw the proposal we made before. |
| Habib: | Can I ask a few questions? |
| Lin: | This question is still outstanding between us. And I thought Mr. Habib might have put forth some proposals that would be to the satisfaction of both sides. |
| Habib: | First, it is my understanding that we made the same statement in December as in November with respect to the liabilities prior to 1949. In effect, they will not be an issue between us and let's not make it one. But let me examine that again and we will talk about it again. I don't believe that a matter we do not ask you to acknowledge can become an issue |
SECRET/NODIS
