194. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State1
20. 1. One hour fifteen minutes meeting today. I opened with prepared statement emphasizing mutuality my April 19 draft and charging him with “haggling and bargaining” over Taiwan area reference by establishing preconditions for its inclusion. Ended with hope that we could at least move in direction April 19 draft.
2. He replied with prepared statement along lines Chou En-lai’s remarks on talks in People’s Congress speech2 with emphasis on stalling charges. “Any announcement must be capable relaxation and elimination tension Taiwan area instead of perpetuating status quo US occupation.” Aim of US has always been secure announcement advantageous solely to US and failing such attempt indefinitely drag out these talks. Cannot agree these talks being used as “tool” by one party, continuation must be advantageous both sides.
3. During give and take I kept coming back to April 19 draft, pointing out mutual advantage as first step peaceful resolution and renewing charge they unwilling make unconditional renunciation force as first step.
4. Wang replied that it did not appear positions two sides likely come closer together on renunciation declaration, and therefore unless at next meeting I had new constructive proposal he suggested [Page 405] talks take up discussion other agenda two item, that is trade embargo.3
5. I made no direct reply to his suggestion but pointed out inference his government was rejecting unconditional renunciation of force and while I discouraged at their attitude felt issues too important for despair and still hopeful his government would adopt this generally acceptable principle international conduct. If it persists in maintaining its threat initiate force Taiwan area hard be optimistic peaceful settlement our disputes.4
6. He attempted avoid any discussion implementation, and I took initiative making brief statement noting Fathers Clifford and Phillips permitted leave only after completion full term sentences and making points para one Deptel 11.5 Wang closed off subject by general statement was US rather than PRC interfering with Indian Embassy.
7. He proposed next meeting July 24 but readily accepted my counterproposal for Thursday July 26.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–1056. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.↩
- Reference is to the speech delivered by Premier Chou En-lai to the National People’s Congress in Peking on June 28, summarized in telegram 5 from Hong Kong, July 4. According to this summary, Chou referred to the Geneva talks as confirmation of the international position of the People’s Republic of China, and added that it was becoming more difficult to ignore China’s views in the settlement of major international disputes while the United States was holding talks with the People’s Republic of China. (Ibid., 611.93/7–456)↩
- In his comments on the meeting, in telegram 23 from Geneva, July 10, Johnson stated that he did not believe Wang’s “suggestion” to turn to the trade embargo item presaged an early break in the talks, but was rather a renewed attempt to put pressure on the United States. (Ibid., 611.93/7–1056)↩
- McConaughy wrote to Johnson, in letter No. 49, July 6, that there was no prospect of a new U.S. position on renunciation of force: “The disposition here is not to try to develop anything new on renunciation. You will have to continue using your ingenuity to play the same theme.” (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)↩
- In paragraph 1 of guidance telegram 11 to Geneva, July 6, Johnson was instructed to recall that the U.S. decision to extend the Agreed Announcement to include Chinese alien criminals was reached after Wang had dwelt on the question for many weeks. Johnson was to express surprise that the Chinese were now placing obstacles in the way of the Indian Government in the performance of its function. (Ibid., Central Files, 611.93/7–656)↩