Habib said that in recent exchanges, we have avoided use of those terms which Lin finds objectionable. Lin responded that this was a change in form but not in essence. Habib said that we are trying to find terms that are legally acceptable. Lin asked "What laws?" Habib said we must take into account possible litigation, otherwise we are laying ourselves open to court suits. Lin asked what the law is based on. Habib said it is not just a question of a law. Claimants can take the US Government to court if the assets are not properly defined. We must define the assets that are blocked; that's all that we are trying to do in words acceptable to both sides. If we can't reach agreement, we can come back to it later. After further study we might find wording acceptable to both of us. The problem is that if the assets are not defined an owner of an asset can go to court and claim that the asset has not been assigned to the US Government.
Lin responded that the Chinese side had carefully considered the matter and has no need to study it further. "I asked what the law was based upon; you talked a lot but did not answer my question."
Habib said that he had been trying to define the problem. If we understand the problem we can find an answer. I understand your difficulty. The question is whether we can find a solution.
Lin reiterated that he had asked what the law was based on. Habib has not answered; instead he has talked in a round about way. But he, Lin, can answer the question. The US side actually wants to follow the hostile law of 1950. If we accept that hostile law, it will create a strong reaction. It is a political question, not a legal one.
Habib answered that he had been trying to define the problem. If there is no solution now, we can put it off until later. After further consideration, we may find a solution.
Lin said the Chinese position was made clear in November 1973 and in the proposed exchange of letters. Habib had said that the purpose is to find a solution acceptable to both. It is not for us to put forward a solution but the US side must think of a solution. Our position has been made clear. Perhaps Habib thinks the US in December put forward a solution. We studied it carefully. There was a change in form but none in essence. This means that the US side still insists upon its unreasonable demand. We have had two talks and the US side has not made a new proposal. This shows
SECRET/NODIS
