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

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

Geneva, January 16, 1956—7:02 p.m.

1496. Guidance for January 19 meeting.

1. Point out that at last meeting in attempt to meet all legitimate Communist points, you had introduced amendment to their counter proposal of December 1. This amendment did not change essential features of Communist proposal, but for purpose of preventing future misunderstanding of scope and meaning, had introduced two clarifying insertions a) making clear it applied to Taiwan area, and b) that it was not intended to deny inherent right of two sides to individual and collective self-defense.

2. Refer to Wang’s statement last meeting that Communists would be willing consider inclusion specific mention Taiwan area in renunciation of force declaration. This represents step forward and leaves only self-defense issue standing in way of agreement

3. Insist on necessity to include provision for individual and collective self-defense for protection of rights of both sides. This cannot possibly be objectionable to either side since it is right long recognized by international law. It is expressly provided for in Article 51 of UN Charter. Having raised point, if US were now to agree to remove this provision from declaration on renunciation of force, it could be construed as a waiver by both sides of this inherent right and US cannot agree to this. You should point out that this is not designed in any way to commit Communists to renounce pursuit of their policies by peaceful means with respect to Taiwan, as was stated in your November 10 draft.

4. FYI. You should hold firm on this point. Department considers Communists unlikely break over this, for they would find their position difficult to defend publicly. However, even if Communists should break on this, Department considers it impossible to yield to Communist demand since this could be claimed by Communists to be relinquishment US right to enter collective defense arrangements in Taiwan area, and indeed its right to defend its ships and forces, and to participate in defense of offshore islands, if it decides to do so should they be attacked by Communists.² End FYI.

5. You should repeat arguments used last meeting, again reviewing course of negotiations and emphasizing US initiative on renunciation of force issue, and its having met every legitimate Communist proposal.

6. Make strong statement on implementation, concentrating on Communist failure fulfill Agreed Announcement expeditiously. Expose absurdity of Communist allegations that US obstructing departure Chinese by citing Baltimore Sun article on Liu An-hua.³ Avoid implying that US has obligation or intention to investigate individuals named by Wang in absence any evidence that individuals in question being obstructed from going to Communist China. Wang’s inability produce such evidence proves hollowness his charges. Weakness of Wang’s position provides you opportunity take offensive as you did last meeting.

7. If Wang should renew demand that substance of discussions be made public, you should state that progress to date made possible by private character of discussions and detailing them to public would only hinder success. US has nothing to hide but has no desire transform talks from serious discussion into propaganda contest.

8. FYI British learned on good authority in Peiping that Wang was there December 31.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1656. Secret; Priority; Limited Distribution. Drafted by Phleger and Clough; cleared in draft by Secretary Dulles, and cleared by Sebald and McConaughy; and approved for transmission by Robertson.

2. McConaughy told Johnson in his letter of January 16 (see footnote 1, Document 128) that Robertson, Phleger, Sebald, and he all agreed that they could not accept deletion of the provision for individual and collective self defense. He commented:

   “It seems clear to us that Wang’s strategy is to tie our hands in the Taiwan area by getting us to renounce the right of self defense there. Then, by Chinese Communist reasoning, there would be no occasion for them to exercise any right of self defense in an ‘international’ dispute and they could deal with the Chinese Nationalists as a domestic insurrectionary element the same as they would with an insurrection in Fukien Province.”

3. Liu and his wife were among the seven Chinese students allegedly prevented from returning to China according to Wang’s January 5 letter to Johnson; see footnote 10, Document 128. Telegram 1497 to Geneva, January 16, informed Johnson that the Baltimore Sun had published an interview with Liu on January 13, in which he stated that he and his wife had been prevented from returning to China for a visit in 1951 but had since become U.S. citizens and did not wish to return to China. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1656)