Office of the Historian

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

Geneva, April 9, 1956—noon.

1737. 1. Very mild one hour 10 minute meeting this morning.

2. Wang opened with statement hoping I would have constructive suggestions that would enable us to make progress. I replied with expression disappointment he had no concrete suggestions; unreasonable expect me offer suggestions meet his objections which I did not consider well-founded; willing cooperate find language meet both points of view and listen any suggestions he had consistent with principles I consider essential. I hoped that he would at this morning’s meeting “at least have some thoughts that would enable me to give further detailed consideration this matter prior to our next meeting”. He cut off any further discussion, moving to implementation.

3. Implementation was along familiar lines, he giving me three more names, I making points contained para one Deptel 1841.2 Although I gave him many openings to do so he seemed deliberately to avoid any mention whatever of Chinese prisoners in US, concentrating on “almost 50 names” he had given me for which I had not accounted. In my rebuttal I cited his failure give me any additional infor on Yuan Jui-hsiang or reply to my request for medical records on Bradshaw and Kanady as well as focusing discussion on fact Indian embassy has not yet brought to our attention single allegation of obstruction.

4. He demurred my suggestion next meeting April 19 pressing for Monday April 16 but finally yielded to Thursday April 19.

[Johnson]
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/4–956. Confidential; Limit Distribution.↩
  2. Paragraph 1 of guidance telegram 1841 to Geneva, April 5, reads: “Maintain strong position that Chinese must implement their commitment release imprisoned Americans. Tell Wang that Chinese Communists should discard any illusion that their continued failure live up to their agreement will gain them political advantages. Also that failure carry out in good faith agreement already made is unpropitious basis for attempt make further agreements.” (Ibid., 611.93/4–556)↩