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

155. Copy of a Telegram From the Indian Ambassador in China (Raghavan) to Indian Prime Minister Nehru¹

Peking, March 2, 1956.

Chou En-lai said you will be meeting Lloyd and Dulles² in next few days. He would like you to know Chinese view on some current international questions. Questions mentioned by him were:

(I) Sino-American talks and (II) Viet Nam.

2. With regard to Sino American talks Chou En-lai said there are two questions (a) implementation of agreement on nationals and (b) declaration on peaceful settlement of disputes. As regards nationals it is evident USA is trying to get her people back while “her sincerity about sending Chinese nationals back is doubtful.”

3. Chou En-lai again gave me figures which were already reported to Ministry. Out of 40 American prisoners only 13 remain. “Cases of remaining prisoners are under review”. No difficulty exists in case of prisoners.

4. As regards Chinese nationals in USA many difficulties have arisen. Out of 5242 students only 156 have so far returned. Chinese Government have listed names of 3477 and have ascertained that 628 wish to come back. U.S. Government have however told them that permission to return has been given to only 103 students. Of these 31 have still not returned. In addition 3 students are “missing”. Names and addresses of all have been given to Indian Embassy. One student who returned recently was a mental case and difficulty experienced by him shows that students and others are being obstructed from coming back.

5. Chou En-lai mentioned some specific obstructions. Ind Embassy Washington has no facility for communicating text of agreement to Chinese prisoners. U.S. Government has also taken no action in this matter and they have not even given list of prisoners. Chinese Government’s information is that in California alone there are over 200 Chinese nationals in prison. Other obstructions are Formosa entry permits and permanent resident permits. Details are known to Ministry. Chou En-lai said all this shows that U.S. Government are obstructing Chinese nationals from returning to China and are not giving same facilities to Indian Embassy as are available to British Chargé d’Affaires here.

6. As regards declaration on peaceful settlement of disputes, Chou En-lai said that discussion has been going on since October last. Four drafts have been considered texts of which he gave me for ready reference. Ministry has got these texts. Chou En-lai said that last American draft³ raised two fundamental questions (a) right of self-defense and (b) specific mention of Formosa area. Under no circumstances could Chinese Government agree to any statement regarding U.S.A’s so called right of self-defence in Formosa area.

7. After giving Chinese reasons which are well known Chou En-lai said that “Judging from discussion it appears U.S.A. might withdraw clause regarding self-defense in order to insist that Formosa area should be specifically mentioned in draft”. He said that Chinese Government agree “if any one talks about disputes between U.S.A. and China one means that it is about Formosa”. At Bandung he had specifically said that “they must work to soften tensions in Far East and Formosa area”.

8. Chinese Government would not object to Formosa being specifically mentioned in draft as one of existing disputes. They could only agree to this however if holding of Ministers of Foreign Affairs Conference was also mentioned in draft as agreed method of settling these disputes. “If America does not want to refer to Ministers’ of Foreign Affairs Conference we do not want to refer to specific area of dispute, namely Formosa. In that case declaration should be in general terms as suggested by Chinese draft of 1st December”.

9. Chou En-lai said United States Government have three reasons for mentioning Formosa while avoiding reference to Ministers’ of Foreign Affairs Conference (a) they wish “to show superficially to world that declaration has softened tension in Formosa area while actually it would freeze situation there”; (b) they wish “to tide over election year and have no intention of agreeing to Ministers of Foreign Affairs Conference”; (c) they wish “to increase their armed strength in Formosa area under pretext of helping Chiang Kai Shek. [”]

10. Chou En-lai said, “We see in present American tactics a hidden conspiracy on the part of U.S.A. to cheat and deceive China”. He said that their representative in Geneva had declared in yesterday’s meeting⁴ that “they have seen through American plot and they would not agree to their designs”. He also said that they were going to tell U.S. Government that they could accept either of two Chinese drafts (a) the draft of last October which refers to both Formosa and Ministers of Foreign Affairs Conference or (b) the draft of 1st December which refers to neither. “This is only logical and fair.” In the case of U.S. Government continuing their obstructive tactics Chinese Government “intend releasing entire proceedings of discussions of second item of agenda”.

11. Chou En-lai asked me to convey to you his views and added “this question will have important bearing on Far East situation this year and on developments from now onwards. India has been most helpful and we appreciate her good offices for improving relations between China and U.S.A. I would like Prime Minister Nehru to know real state of Chinese views when he meets Lloyd and Dulles.”

1. Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204, Nehru’s Correspondence with Eisenhower/Dulles. A copy of this telegram was handed by Nehru to Dulles in New Delhi on March 10 during the Secretary’s visit to India following the SEATO meetings in Karachi, March 6–8.
2. Secretary Dulles and British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd paid separate visits to India in conjunction with the SEATO meetings in Karachi.
3. Not further identified.
4. Summarized in telegram 1571, supra.