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

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

Geneva, December 1, 1955—10 p.m.

1240. 1. Twenty-eighth meeting today opened by Wang Ping-nan with prepared statement on renunciation of force. Wang said it now two months since discussion this subject began. Draft statement put forward by CPR side October 27² and by US side November 10.³ He has carefully studied drafts and statements made by both sides.

2. Wang said if both sides agreed in principle, it should be possible agree on text announcement. Chinese side always stood for peaceful settlement international disputes without resort to threat or use of force, in conformity UN Charter.

I had repeatedly indicated US as member UN also willing abide by UN Charter. At last meeting I had indicated US agreed to principle finding just settlement international disputes by peaceful means. On this principle there should be agreement both sides. Whether draft announcement incorporated pertinent provisions UN Charter is technical question and must not constitute obstacle in way of agreement.

3. Wang said in view of agreement this fundamental principle, there should be no difficulty making agreed announcement to effect PRC and USA will settle disputes between them without resort to threat or use of force. Both recognize existence international disputes and agree practical, feasible way should be sought arrive at peaceful settlement. In order realize this CPR side has proposed conference Foreign Ministers. However, I and other responsible members US Government had indicated that present talks should be fully utilized. In order that talks may progress step by step he considered principles agreeable both sides should be confirmed by agreed announcement and talks continued in order find practicable and feasible way peacefully settle disputes between our two countries.

4. Wang said in line with above he was presenting new draft agreed announcement, pledging not to use force in international relations (mytel 1235).⁴

5. Wang said for [before?] presenting draft CPR side was not abandoning proposal convene Foreign Ministers conference in order relax and eliminate tension Taiwan area. However he would amplify his stand in talks following issuance announcement. Draft announcement embraced all points on which both sides agree and contained nothing disagreeable to either side. He believed we should be able reach agreement on this new draft.

6. I replied I welcomed Wang’s statement and felt it represented considerable advance our discussions. I would give draft the detailed and careful consideration I knew it deserved.

7. I said I had one question. Major point of difference between us so far has been whether or not there should be specific mention Taiwan area. I wanted make clear our suggestions in regard specific mention Taiwan area not motivated desire embarrass or trick Wang’s Government into abandoning its well known position in regard Taiwan area. Desire for specific mention Taiwan area motivated by desire make clear whatever is said on renunciation of force applies also to Taiwan area.

8. I said on basis original draft and Wang’s remarks in course of meetings, there has been doubt in my mind in this regard. I originally raised this question when October 27 draft presented. I asked at that time whether fourth paragraph applicable disputes between us in Taiwan area. I recalled Wang’s answer had been yes. However, in subsequently amplifying his position, it seemed to me his government was reserving right to consider situation Taiwan area as domestic matter beyond scope of international matters between our two countries. I understood his position in this regard and did not desire engage in controversy this point. I simply desired know what effect draft announcement would have our dispute in Taiwan area. As I understood his remarks, effect is that his government reserved right at any time interpret situation as domestic matter in which it entitled take offensive military action.

9. I said stated in another way his proposal appeared to me to have been that although we would seem to have agreed renounce force between us, his government would maintain threat at any time of its choosing to initiate hostilities that area. We consider it important that whatever is said on renunciation of force, it be made clear that even though there may be differences in interpretation of situation in Taiwan area, announcement also apply that area.

10. I said this was somewhat long introduction my question, but I wanted make clear our line of thinking. Questions whether or not Wang willing consider mention in some specific way of Taiwan area in order make clear we both consider announcement applies Taiwan area. Said I might add I perfectly willing this be done in manner not to prejudice his government’s position and pursuit by peaceful means of its policies.

11. Wang said we had already spent long period of time discussing this question. Purpose discussions was overcome obstacles in way of settlement between us. Proposal for both of us make announcement originated with myself. Now we have before us two drafts for announcement. Each of us has points which he cannot accept in draft of other one.

12. Wang said however at last meeting I had indicated we agreed on principle making announcement and also agreed on need for peaceful settlement disputes but differed on text of agreement. At last meeting I had also repeatedly indicated that so long as we agreed in principle, there should be no difficulty in agreeing on text. So long as we both serious and sincere in search of agreement, there should be no difficulty.

13. Wang said his side had now made new effort in that spirit. I would note that new proposal did not contain anything to which we not able agree between us at present time. He considered that issues between PRC and US must necessarily be solved step by step. His idea was first to agree on points in common between us. So long as we employed peaceful means for settling disputes, he saw no reason for not reaching agreement.

14. Wang said in regard to mention of Taiwan area, he wished to renew his statements made in past meetings. We must not confuse international with domestic issues. Internal conflict naturally not within scope of present talks. In explaining fourth paragraph October 27 draft and also in presenting present draft, he had made clear disputes between two countries include dispute between us in Taiwan area. It was precisely desire of PRC side that disputes between us in Taiwan area be settled peacefully.

15. Wang said he wished point out that proposal made this morning was very important and put forward only after serious and careful consideration. He was glad to hear my preliminary views and comments this draft. He hoped our side would give careful consideration to this latest offer. He hoped we would be able reach agreement on this draft. Adoption this draft would demonstrate that although we spent great deal of time in discussion, we able make progress and find text agreeable both of us.

16. I said I was still trying to get at heart of matter. I too hoped we can show progress to world. Important thing is we make sure it is genuine progress. Our problem is not give appearance of progress by agreeing to form of words that means one thing to one side and another to other. Problems we face are too fundamental importance for that. I felt we would be doing disservice to both our people and cause of peace if we attempted agree on basis words which had different meanings. That is why I may be appearing so persistent. Purpose is not debate but to try to arrive at understanding. I agreed that problems should be discussed step-by-step. We both agreed that area in which policies confront each other most seriously is Taiwan area.

17. I said what I was trying to get at was this. In making statement such as he had proposed, US would be renewing what I had termed renunciation of force in international relations; Wang’s government would give appearance of doing same thing. However, in light of his remarks and fully expressed policy his government, would not his government in fact be saying it considered question of Taiwan area domestic matter and hence reserved right initiate use of force any time it did?

18. I said perhaps I had not made myself clear. I would state my point in another way. While his side was willing make declaration of renunciation of force with US, did it still insist on right interpret situation Taiwan area to permit it to apply force at any time its desires not met? That is, would US have renounced force whereas Wang’s government would not have done so because of its reservations in regard to nature of dispute in Taiwan area? Would any further negotiation between us be subject to continuing threat of initiation of force by his government that area?

19. I said I hoped I was not right in this. What I had expressed frankly was my understanding of position Wang’s government. I wished he would tell me frankly if I was wrong.

20. Wang said he thought it important to note we were dealing with matters between China and US. If he were to raise matters or policies within scope internal affairs US or if he were to cause apprehensions concerning US policy of internal affairs, he would be guilty of going beyond scope present talks. This would complicate problem between us and would amount to creating difficulties in talks.

21. Wang said draft he had presented can in no way be described as an “apparent” form. He agreed anything we declared should have practical bearing. Difference of policies our two countries in Taiwan area has lead to extremely tense situation over which people of world most concerned. Demonstrating our desire settle disputes by peaceful means without resort to use of force meets with desire people of world. This action in interests both sides.

22. I said I would put my question very bluntly, if this or similar statement were issued tomorrow, would his government have said anything that would prevent it on next day from saying that it considered situation Taiwan area domestic matter and was therefore initiating hostilities there?

23. Wang said my question went precisely beyond scope of talks. As he had repeatedly stated, question of Taiwan is an internal matter of China, which his side also willing settle by peaceful means. To follow line I had taken, if we were to issue announcement tomorrow, then our discussions have created same result. That is, two countries henceforth willing settle any dispute by peaceful means. That would certainly be welcomed by all. It would demonstrate to world that China and US have made contribution to relaxing tension Taiwan area.

24. Wang said following issuance of announcement, we would continue discussion to find settlement disputes, such as question embargoes and higher level conference between two countries. Then if I wanted discuss further ways and means relax tension Taiwan area, his side prepared join me and continue discussion in this direction.

[25.] I said would this mean discussions would not be held under threat that one side would reserve right initiate hostilities if its desires not fully met?

26. Wang said it has always been stand his side that negotiations should be carried on in peaceful atmosphere. If one were to mention threats, it is his side that felt itself being threatened.

27. I said I had nothing further on this subject. I would study draft and reply more fully at next meeting. Before passing to another matter, did he have anything further?

28. Wang said we had talked a great deal on this subject and new effort his side was being made on basis of what I had said at last meeting. He believed draft is within interest of both of us, and hoped we would progress smoothly on this subject.

29. I said I agreed, and felt our discussion this morning had been most useful. I hoped he would meanwhile consider question I had raised this morning. Amplification of his answers would be most helpful.

[Here follows discussion concerning implementation of the agreed announcement.]

43. Meeting closed with confirmation next meeting Thursday December 8, Same press statement.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–355. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution. Transmitted in three parts.
2. See footnote 2, Document 85.
3. Transmitted in Document 94.

4. Johnson transmitted his summary account of the meeting in telegram 1235 from Geneva, December 1, which reads in part as follows:

   • “1. At one hour forty-five minute meeting this morning Wang opened with prepared statement which was very mild and conciliatory in tone, in very marked contrast to tone prepared statements past few meetings, and closed with presentation new draft agreed announcement which reads as follows:
     • “a) Ambassador Wang Ping-nan, on behalf of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and Ambassador Alexis Johnson on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, agree to announce:
     • “b) The People’s Republic of China and the United States of America are determined that they should settle disputes between their two countries through peaceful negotiations without resorting to the threat or use of force;
     • “c) The two Ambassadors should continue their talks to seek practical and feasible means for the realization of this common desire.
   • “2. In reply I welcomed his statement and characterized it as advance in our negotiations. I then spent about an hour probing on applicability statement to Taiwan area. Best answer I obtained from him was that although Taiwan internal matter beyond scope present talks, willing settle that question by peaceful means. He omitted usual qualification “conditions permitting”.

   “During give and take he spoke of “step by step” resolution US–PRC disputes and said if during course our talks here I wanted discuss ways and means relaxing tensions Taiwan area or other questions, he willing discuss. There was no renewal demand for withdrawal US forces but reply my question as to whether subsequent negotiations would be conducted under continued threat his side would resort to force Taiwan area if desires not met he replied with somewhat pro forma statement that PRC is one which feels itself threatened in area.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–155)