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

197. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State¹

Geneva, July 26, 1956—2 p.m.

71. Three-hour five-minute meeting this morning mostly on renunciation. While Wang renewed his proposal move to trade and made few general remarks thereon, he didn’t press hard² and discussion revolved around renunciation along familiar lines. This phase meeting closed on inconclusive note with Wang stating progress depended on US putting forward constructive opinion and my characterizing obstacle as lack willingness PRC give up threat use force Taiwan area.

After I made opening statement on renunciation Chang made fairly extensive reply ending with proposal move to “discussion concrete measures lifting trade embargo.” I replied thereto with renewal discussion on renunciation but weaving in points para 3 and 4 Deptel 60.³ While Wang made few general remarks on lack justification for embargo which “outstanding issue which hinders normal development relations” permitted himself to be led back into discussion renunciation and remainder phase this meeting kept that subject.

I made long statement on implementation covering points contained para 1 Deptel 60⁴ tying it back to his previous statements on necessity talks be advantageous both sides and characterizing results agreed announcement as one-sided disadvantage to US. Wang replied along usual lines, only thing new being reference to “recent move by US try to send Chinese in US in prison to Taiwan” but without directly referring to letter to prisoners.⁵

I proposed next meeting Tuesday [Thursday] August 2. Wang countered with suggestion Thursday August 9 to which I agreed.

Departing Prague Friday morning.

Johnson

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–2656. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.
2. In his detailed comments on the meeting in telegram 76 from Geneva, July 27, Johnson characterized Wang’s approach to the meeting as a “marking time” operation. (Ibid., 611.93/7–2756)

3. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of guidance telegram 60 to Geneva, July 19, the Department outlined its opposition to discussion of the trade control item, stating that “we must maintain our fundamental position that there can be no fruitful discussion of this item under the overhanging threat of use of force; that there must be a meaningful agreed announcement by parties renouncing force before trade embargoes can be usefully discussed”. Johnson was instructed to point out that it was unrealistic to think that any country would help to strengthen another country which threatens to use force if its demands are not met. (Ibid., 611.93/7–1956) In letter No. 51 to Johnson, July 20, McConaughy offered additional insight on the Department’s position on the trade control item:

   “You will see that we are taking a strong line in refusing to discuss trade controls in the absence of a renunciation of force. It is substantially the position you took last November, and the position you recommended in your comments on the last meeting. We debated for some time whether we should also state that discussion of trade or any other practical matter would additionally be contingent on full Chinese Communist compliance with the agreed announcement. We somewhat reluctantly decided not to put this in, for tactical reasons. At the same time you will understand that this second condition, although not to be expressed by you at this time, still stands. If they should agree to renounce force, we would then point out that they would have to make good on their commitment of September 10 before we could go on to any other practical matter at issue.” (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)

4. Paragraph 1 of telegram 60 to Geneva reads as follows:

   “We believe it is important at the coming meeting to protest the prolonged failure of Communists to implement the agreed announcement on return of Americans. Point out agreement made more than 10 months ago, return was to be expeditious, and that 90 days had even been discussed as a limit of time. Point out our full compliance in letter and spirit with announcement, and our recent action in arranging for deportation of Chinese in prison, although they not covered by announcement. Point out that this U.S. decision made in light Communist repeated claims that they included so that there could be no possible basis for Communist continued refusal to release U.S. prisoners. Point out difficulty in making arrangements for exercise by prisoners of choice of repatriation and for participation by Indian Embassy; incomprehensible failure of Indian Embassy to cooperate due to request by Communists that it do not do so. Point out difficulty of making progress toward further agreements when those already made are not lived up to.”

5. In June the Department sent letters to all Chinese aliens serving terms in American prisons indicating that they would be given the option of continuing to serve their sentences or immediate departure for either the Chinese mainland or Taiwan, and that they would be visited in order to determine their preference. Text of this letter was sent to Geneva in telegram 2105, June 7. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/6–756)