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

18. Telegram From the Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva¹

Washington, August 11, 1955—8:30 p.m.

466. Your 402,² 403³ and 417.⁴ Our objections to Wang’s draft agreement summarized separate telegram.⁵ You will be instructed in time for August 13 meeting.

FYI We wish avoid formal agreement with Chinese Communists. Prefer unilateral US declaration which would be matched by corresponding Chinese Communist declaration. We are considering draft declaration reading as follows:

• “1. The United States of America declares that Chinese nationals in the United States who desire to return to the China mainland are entitled to depart for the China mainland.
• 2. The Embassy of the Republic of India in the USA is authorized to assist in such return as follows:

  (a) If a Chinese national believes that, contrary to the above Declaration, he is encountering official obstruction in departure, he may so inform the Indian Embassy and the Indian Embassy will, if desired by the C.P.R., intervene on such civilian’s behalf with the Government of the United States.

  (b) If a Chinese national in the USA who desires to return to the China mainland has difficulty in paying for his return journey, the Indian Embassy may render him the financial assistance needed to permit of his return.

• 3. The Government of the United States will give wide publicity to the foregoing provisions of this Declaration and the Embassy of India in the USA may also do so.
• 4. This Declaration shall remain in force for at least 90 days and thereafter until notice of termination has been given by the Government of the United States to the Indian Embassy in the USA.
• 5. The provisions of Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 hereof shall come into force when a corresponding Declaration (with the substitution of the Government of the United Kingdom for the Government of the Republic of India) has been made by the C.P.R.”

Transmit your reaction immediately so that we may have the benefit of your views before instructions drafted tomorrow afternoon.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1155. Secret; Priority. The source text lists Dulles and McConaughy as the drafters, but the Secretary did not initial. Approved for transmission by Robertson.
2. Document 16.
3. Supra.

4. Johnson commented in telegram 417 from Geneva, August 11, on the meeting that day and on the Department’s instructions to him in telegram 440 (Document 15). He stated that it was difficult for him to argue the principle of free return since “substantially all Americans are being detained on pretext crimes and claims” and since he was unable to say that the United States would permit Chinese who had committed crimes to depart. He had, therefore, been “attempting to keep discussion within framework practical situations.” The telegram continues as follows:

   “Today’s meeting makes clear that ChiCom asking price for further action on release Americans is representation arrangement. Present ChiCom position asking US for performance on representation arrangement in return for promise on Americans is clearly unacceptable.

   “However problem we will be facing is how many Americans we insist on in return representation arrangement. I have up to this time and will as long as it seems useful talk in terms ‘all Americans’ although in context give and take at today’s meeting I left door open for something short of that.

   “Do not feel we will obtain release any further Americans prior to agreement on representation but that we should strive for simultaneous announcement release Americans with announcement agreement on representation.

   “At Saturday’s meeting I plan again to press Wang on release Americans possibly obliquely suggesting simultaneous announcement as mentioned above and argue against broadening our suggested arrangement on representation.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1155)

5. Telegram 470 to Geneva, August 12, informed Johnson that the Department considered that Wang’s draft represented no basic advance, since the cases of all detained Americans were classified by the Communists as either criminal or civil, and that it objected to the provision for “investigation upon request of Government” which would enable the Chinese to request investigation of and make representations regarding “unlimited” numbers of Chinese in the United States. (Ibid.)