164. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State1
1706. 1. Calm and mild one and a half hour meeting this morning with Wang soliciting and even urging new draft by U.S. and I tossing ball back to his court.
2. I opened meeting with prepared statement incorporating paragraphs 1 and 2, Department telegram 1804.2 Wang made no attempt to meet, but receding from take it-or-leave-it attitude on their October 27 and December 1 drafts, stated “If U.S. still found those drafts unacceptable, U.S. should put forward new constructive proposal and submit new draft”. I, of course, countered pointing out by all logic and normal negotiating procedures it was their turn put forward draft if they genuinely shared our desire for declaration. Much inconclusive fencing during remainder of meeting on point of who should submit new draft.3
3. His reply my statement on implementation was very brief, reiterating in low key charges U.S. not carrying out agreed announcement and stating if U.S. has in mind only Americans in China and does not give due consideration problem Chinese in U.S., “this problem can never be resolved”. Again raised failure account Chinese in prison and on lists given me and asked for information on Pao’s “mysterious” death.
4. He proposed and I agreed to next meeting Monday April 9. In order I could make plans I asked whether he would agree next following meeting Thursday April 19. He asked decision be deferred [Page 337] until next meeting and I told him I expected make proposal April 19 meeting that time.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/3–2956. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.↩
- Telegram 1804 to Geneva, March 27, provided Departmental guidance for the March 29 meeting. In paragraph 1, Johnson was instructed to press the Chinese on the issue of the return of Americans held in China, and to indicate that prospects for reaching agreement on other outstanding issues depended upon complete implementation of the Agreed Announcement. The second paragraph dealt with the question of renunciation of force, and Johnson was instructed to “maintain posture of being willing consider any Chinese Communist amendments which would not do violence basic principles our January 12 draft”. Johnson was instructed to criticize, however, a “take it or leave it” attitude on the part of the Chinese with regard to their two drafts dealing with the question. (Ibid., 611.93/3–2756)↩
- In telegram 1707 from Geneva, March 29, Johnson expanded his comments on what he saw as a shift in Chinese tactics: “Believe Wang considers that his shift today from former take it or leave it attitude with respect his October 27 and December 1 draft was move on their part to get talks off dead center, and that next move is up to us. Do not believe he will submit any new draft next meeting. However I feel his move today gives us opportunity present new draft without same disadvantages as heretofore, if we desire do so.” (Ibid., 611.93/3–2956)↩