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

113. Telegram From the Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva¹

Washington, December 6, 1955—8:06 p.m.

1352. Guidance for December 8 meeting.

1. Department sending by separate telegram² text communications from British regarding failure Communists transmit two letters from Dr. Bradshaw and British protest and proposed action.

2. You should make strongest protest on this further failure Communists to implement agreed announcement and demand that steps be taken forthwith by Communists show they are acting in good faith and intend make good on their commitments and public representations.

3. Point out with respect proposed declarations on renunciation of force that there has been general agreement both sides on renouncing use force and both sides appear be making progress in arriving at appropriate announcement. We will have further comments to make on Wang’s proposal at later meeting, but it is entirely unrealistic to be formulating proposed second public announcement when one already made is being so flagrantly violated. Progress in renunciation force can only be realistically made when Communists show that they are proceeding and intend to proceed in good faith to carry out the public declaration regarding expeditious return civilians already made.

4. With respect to renunciation force proposals Department sending you by separate telegrams our views on this subject and amended text for presentation at later meeting as appropriate.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–655. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Phleger, cleared by Sebald and McConaughy, and approved for transmission by Robertson.
2. Telegram 1348 to Geneva, December 6, summarized for Johnson a report of O’Neill’s efforts on behalf of the imprisoned Americans. He had received a letter from Dr. Bradshaw requesting a visit from an Embassy representative and stating that the authorities had told him they would not transmit two earlier letters he had written to O’Neill because such letters should be limited to a request for a conference. (Ibid., 293.1141–Bradshaw, A.V. (Mr. and Mrs.)/12–655)