27. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State 1

520. Two hours and 20 minutes this morning repetition same themes both sides with no progress.

Wang presented proposal virtually identical with our August 16 draft agreement [agreed] announcement2 except for vital first paragraph which he proposed be amended read as follows:

“1. The People’s Republic of China recognizes that American Nationals in the PRC who desire to return are entitled to do so and declares that it has adopted and will further adopt appropriate measures so that they can exercise their right to return.”3

His theme was this was “key which would open door” to solution problem Americans in China and again offered promptly give me names whose cases “review completed” making clear this grant release.

My theme was contrast action we had taken Chinese US. He was asking I open door without showing me what was behind it, that if he would show me what was behind it and if it met my request on release all Americans question timing could be worked out.

[Page 46]

He inflexibly resisted my persistent pressure give me any assurance or even indication that his solution would bring about release all Americans. Result was complete deadlock but no effort by him to precipitate any break or hint at recess. Next meeting Saturday,4 10 a.m.

[Johnson]
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1855. Confidential; Niact.
  2. See footnote 3, Document 24.
  3. Johnson reported in telegram 540 from Geneva, August 18, that the other changes in Wang’s draft were as follows: the insertion of the words “The USA agrees that” at the beginning of numbered paragraph 2, the omission of the word “official” from the phrase “encountering official obstruction” in paragraph 2(a), the use of “Office of the Chargé d’Affaires of the UK” throughout in place of “Embassy of the UK”, the substitution of “PRC” throughout in place of “China mainland”, and the revision of paragraph 2(a) to read, “If any Chinese national believes that contrary to declared policy of the US he is encountering obstruction in departure he may so inform the Indian Embassy and request it to make representations on his behalf with the US Government. If desired by the PRC the Indian Embassy may also make investigation on the facts.” He also reported that Wang had read and handed him a copy of a statement intended to establish supplementary understandings, which Johnson summarized as follows:

    • “a. I had stated that nothing in agreed announcement in any way infringed on sovereignty or jurisdiction and that I presumed cases of Americans would be settled within framework Chinese judicial procedure. On basis Wang’s understanding of these statements of mine he willing to omit sentence his original draft referring to persons involved in unfinished civil or criminal cases.
    • “b. If nationals either side reported to own government they being prevented from leaving, their government could refer such complaint to the third country for investigation or representation. If we would agree to understanding to this effect, Wang would be willing omit this provision from agreed announcement.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1855)

    Johnson transmitted the text of the first portion of the new Chinese draft in telegram 545 from Geneva, August 19, and the text of the supplementary statement in telegram 563 from Geneva, August 20. (Ibid., 611.93/8–1955 and 611.93/8–2055, respectively)

  4. August 20.