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

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

Geneva, January 13, 1955—noon.

1366. Comments on yesterday’s meeting:

Believe Wang was under firm instructions make proposal on open meetings as well as, in event we did not substantially accept their December 1 draft, to implement December 22 threat on unilateral statement.

Believe our strong review history negotiations on reunification [renunciation] force, and form in which we introduced our amendments their draft, well anticipated their tactic and created some confusion and doubt as to strength their public position even on Agenda Item Two. Until very close of meeting was hopeful I had succeeded in dissuading them from persisting in threat to open meetings or going to public.

However, believe substantial gain accomplished in their tentative acceptance inclusion specific mention Taiwan² in a statement which regardless of its exact wording would as political document commit ChiComs in public mind to renunciation of use force in attempting upset status quo.

Negotiating position with respect next meeting was left somewhat confused, this portion January 12 meeting closing on note Wang’s adamant refusal consider any mention individual and collective self-defense and I not giving any indication willingness consider any formula which did not include this principle.

Possible implication Wang’s position could be willingness carry his position at close Jan 12 meeting to point of threatening actual or virtual break at next meeting unless we yield on self-defense clause. It possible this could be done as negotiating tactic, with intention yielding at meeting after next, or that by next meeting ChiComs will perceive weakness their position on this and shift ground. However, I should also be prepared for contingency threat would be genuine.

Therefore, would appreciate my instructions for next meeting covering whether if necessary it is desired maintain my present position on inclusion self-defense clause up to point of actual or virtual break. Only by doing so could I completely test strength position he may adopt this regard. At same time would not want to be placed in position of appearing yield on this point in response threat of break by Wang.

With respect implementation Wang showed no enthusiasm for discussion (it was almost 1 p.m. when this introduced) and his replies were perfunctory and along familiar lines. With respect first sentence para 6 Deptel 1465³ believe it important, particularly in any public output, to note their position and particularly Wang’s position with me since our early exchanges on subject is more subtle than just asserting that agreed announcement does not apply to imprisoned Americans. Position is that there is “distinction” between those “who have committed crimes” and those who have not. With regard to those “who have committed crimes” PRC is taking “further measures” accordance agreed announcement and “expeditious” must be read in relation to “seriousness their crimes” etc. This also brought out in Jan 6 Peiping Foreign Office spokesman statement and again in my exchange with Wang Jan 12.

Seems to me our best negotiating and public position is to reiterate simple and publicly understandable charge of failure release “expeditiously” accordance clear Sept 10 comment rather than give currency any doubt imprisoned Americans covered by agreed announcement.

As sidelight Wang introduced two new assistants yesterday, Lai Ya-li⁴ and Wang Pao-liu, replacing Lin⁵ and Li.⁶ (Am transmitting separate tel asking for available bi [sic]).⁷ On Tuesday met Wang together with Wang Pao-liu in Prague airport they apparently having come from Warsaw. [From?] Prague we traveled by same plane to Zurich. Wang used all of his very limited English in taking initiative congenially greet me, introduce Wang Pao-liu and some innocuous conversation while we were waiting board plane.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1356. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.

2. Reference is apparently to Wang’s statement reported in paragraph 42 of telegram 1364, supra. Johnson’s summary report of the meeting in telegram 1363 from Geneva, January 12, stated on this point:

   “There followed long give and take during which I stressed apparent significance failure their side during three months since my Oct. 8 proposal to agree to specific inclusion Taiwan in any statement, as well as pressed him on willingness include in statement recognition as general principle right individual and collective defense. There was long give and take toward end of which apparently recognizing weakness their public position on inclusion specific mention Taiwan, he stated would consider our amended draft if reference individual collective self-defense removed.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1256)

3. Document 128.
4. Newly appointed Counselor of the PRC Embassy in Moscow.
5. Lin P’ing.
6. Li Hui-ch’uan had been serving as Counselor of the PRC Embassy in Moscow.
7. Johnson requested biographic information in telegram 1369 from Geneva, January 13. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1356)