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

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

Geneva, May 17, 1956—noon.

1895. 1. Two hour meeting this morning which I opened with prepared statement making generalized attack on his May 11 draft. I pointed to complete lack “accommodation” our position and characterized draft as retrogression from not only our draft of April 19 but also his draft Dec 1. Closed by urging consideration April 19 draft making points contained para 3 Deptel 1994.²

2. In give and take he repeated points made last meeting and made concerted effort to draw me into specific discussion particularly on first para May 11 draft, closing by hope I would have detailed comments next meeting. In course this discussion Wang in referring to “peaceful aspirations” PRC stated “will not tolerate present situation (in Taiwan JRE [area?]) for long without applying solution” and if US sincere can it “desire these talks drag on indefinitely”?

3. During give and take I avoided specific discussion details May 11 draft focusing on their unwillingness renounce FMC [force?] Taiwan area and continually urging April 19 draft as unobjectionable statement if they accepted this principle.³ Characterized May 11 draft as nothing more than their original position FMC on Taiwan area while they preserved option use force there. Said US never would accept this position. Urged they reconsider their position by next meeting.

4. Reply my statement again calling for release 13 he said hoped I would be able give him information on Chinese prisoners in US, “this was undertaken by US in agreed announcement”.

5. Next meeting Thursday May 24.

6. Proceeding Prague Friday morning, returning Tuesday or Wednesday.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/5–1756. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.
2. Supra.
3. In his expanded comments on the meeting in telegram 1902 from Geneva, May 17, Johnson stated that he “deliberately avoided specific comment on details his draft and did not as such mention either self-defense or mutual respect clauses in effort avoid traps May 11 draft and keep issue focused on major point their unwillingness renounce force in Taiwan area as set forth our April 19 draft.” Johnson noted that this tactic would probably be effective in the short run, but it tended to sharpen the basic issue and might reduce the freedom of maneuver which the United States needed to keep the talks going. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/5–1756)