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

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

Geneva, April 19, 1956—2 p.m.

1797. 1. One hour 40-minute meeting this morning. After Wang refused my invitation to open, I opened with prepared statement making points contained paragraph 2 Department telegram 1892² and at end presenting second revision December 21 counter-proposal.

2. After 15-minute recess requested by Wang he made “preliminary” remarks characterizing draft as changed in form but content same. Did not feel that it represented any new progress. Made three points:

(a) Their position self-defense clause should be deleted not repositioned.

(b) Taiwan area reference not in context Foreign Ministers meeting as per October 27 draft.

(c) Present Taiwan area reference confuses international and domestic issues to which they are “persistently opposed”. However, will “study draft as a whole” and comment detail next meeting. In order avoid freezing positions I refrained from extensive rebuttal and urged careful study of draft which I felt fully met both points of view.³

3. I then made statement on implementation in accordance paragraph 1 Department telegram 1892.⁴ He replied along similar lines. In meeting today slight reference our failure account for Chinese prisoners, and asserting announcement covered all nationals both countries and not just Chinese students, he gave me no new names. Kanady medical records being transmitted through Red Cross but records on Bradshaw not available as she obtained medical care on own outside of prison. Charged we using alleged insufficiency information on Yuan Jui’-Hsiang as “pretext” to avoid accounting on all 49 his names.

4. Next meeting Thursday April 26.

5. Proceeding Prague tomorrow morning, returning Tuesday.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/4–1956. Confidential; Limit Distribution.

2. Telegram 1892 to Geneva, April 16, provided Departmental guidance for the April 19 meeting. In paragraph 2, Johnson was given discretion to introduce a new draft of the proposed agreed announcement on mutual renunciation of force. In doing so, Johnson was instructed to stress that an effort had been made to retain as much as possible of the draft proposed by the Chinese in December. The draft which Johnson was authorized to introduce was entitled “Second US Revision of Chinese Communist December 1 Counterproposal” and reads:

   • “1. Ambassador Wang Ping-nan, on behalf of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, agree, without prejudice to the pursuit by each side of its policies by peaceful means or its inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, to announce:
   • “2. The People’s Republic of China and the United States of America are determined that they should settle disputes between their two countries through peaceful negotiations without resorting to the threat or use of force in the Taiwan area or elsewhere;
   • “3. The two Ambassadors should continue their talks to seek practical and feasible means for the realization of this common desire.”

   According to letter No. 37 from McConaughy to Johnson, April 6, the revised draft was prepared by Legal Adviser Phleger, and approved by Dulles on April 4 during a review of recent developments at Geneva. Johnson, commenting on the draft in telegram 426 from Prague, April 5, proposed the deletion of the phrase “to the pursuit by each side of its policies by peaceful means” from paragraph 1 of the draft. He also noted that the phrase “individual and collective self-defense” had become a red flag to the Chinese, and he added that the Chinese would probably continue to be unwilling to accept such language. McConaughy wrote back in letter No. 38, April 13, that the Department had considered his comments but preferred to leave the draft as formulated:

   “Judge Phleger in particular believes it is important to leave in the reference to the right of pursuit of policies by peaceful means, in order to undermine Wang’s argument that we would trick him into accepting the status quo. Judge Phleger also thinks that it is very important from a psychological standpoint to adhere as closely as possible to the wording of the Communist draft. This will give more substance to our contention that we are going a long way to meet Wang’s proposition and that our limited amendments of his draft should not make the document unacceptable to him. We are willing to accept slightly less desirable wording in paragraph two in order to preserve this position. Mr. Robertson concurred strongly with Judge Phleger on these points.

   “The feeling was unanimous that we could not possibly consider doing away with the specific reference to the right of individual and collective self defense. This seems to us a cardinal point, and the cession of the point could undermine the foundations of the protective commitment we seek. Our misgivings on this score assume redoubled force in the light of the importance we have attached to this provision in the discussions to date. If we abandon this phrase now after an issue has been made of it, great significance would inevitably be read into our action, with possibly dangerous consequences.” (Telegrams 1892 to Geneva and 426 from Prague are ibid., 611.93/4–1656 and 611.93/4–556, respectively. McConaughy’s letters to Johnson are ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)

3. In his expanded comments on the meeting in telegram 1799 from Geneva, April 19, Johnson noted: “Wang’s reactions to our second revision draft about as expected and probably will forecast line he will take at the next meeting.” (Ibid., Central Files, 611.93/4–1956)
4. In paragraph 1 of telegram 1892 to Geneva, Johnson was instructed to “go over usual ground once more on implementation Agreed Announcement”. He was instructed to deplore the long delay in full implementation of the September 10 announcement, and to note, in contrast, that at least 130 Chinese had traveled from the United States to mainland China since the talks began.