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

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

Washington, August 12, 1955—7:46 p.m.

478. Your 428.²

1. Agree form should be unilateral simultaneous declarations and our 466 was designed to suggest the form of such a declaration.

2. “If desired by C.P.R.” can be deleted at your discretion. We proposed it with a view to creating a situation such that in the C.P.R. Declaration the Government of the United Kingdom would not be obligated to seek the return of American turncoats in China whom we do not want to get back.

3. See no objection to insertion in 2(a) of words “if it deems such a complaint valid” as precondition to intervention on civilians’ behalf. Some such language would conform to your original presentation³ which is unobjectionable.

4. 90-day clause was designed to permit of subsequent modification if conditions change. We do not want to be committed in perpetuity to a situation where Chinese Communist spies could operate in this country, knowing that if caught there would never be any penalty other than their prepaid first-class ticket to China. However, possibly it is sufficient to drop out reference to 90 days and merely provide that the Declaration shall be valid until notice of termination given or possibly nothing need be said explicitly about termination as long as it is understood that it is not necessarily in perpetuity but subject to reasonable termination.

5. We do not understand what you mean as the Declaration referred to includes of course the whole Declaration, including paragraph numbered one which the Chinese could not subscribe to and continue hold Americans. In other words the Chinese Communists do not get benefit of Indian participation unless and until they have declared that all American nationals in Communist China who desire to return to the USA are entitled to depart.

We do not suggest you should submit counterproposal until in your judgment this is appropriate or until otherwise instructed. At some point, however, we feel it may be necessary to submit a concrete proposal in form which could be subsequently made public in the event that no agreement is reached.

At your meeting tomorrow, we think it of utmost importance that you should firmly reject the objectionable features of the ChiCom proposal (your 402,⁴ Dept’s 470⁵). We doubt whether you should be stating that you are “still studying” giving the impression that we are uncertain and open to persuasion. It seems to us that a firm negative reaction will probably be more productive.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1255. Secret; Priority. Drafted and signed by Dulles; cleared with Robertson and McConaughy.

2. Johnson commented in telegram 428 from Geneva, August 12, on the draft sent to him in Document 18. His comments read as follows:

   • “1. Believe form should be unilateral simultaneous declarations agreed in advance and issued here as suggested my 317.
   • “2. Do not see necessity for phrase ‘if desired by CPR’ in para 2(a).
   • “3. Believe desirable particularly on behalf Americans in China retain element of investigation validity complaint suggested in my original presentation.
   • “4. Believe 90 day limit as presently worded not desirable as carries erroneous implication that at end 90 days US may no longer be willing permit departure Chinese aliens. If 90 day limitation considered necessary believe should be limited to para two.
   • “5. Para 5 would tend destroy our present bargaining position in using representation agreement as cheese to obtain Americans and would not be necessary under concept in para one above. ChiComs could well fully subscribe this agreement and continue hold Americans whom they allege have committed crimes or have unsettled claims.

   “Do not believe it necessary or desirable submit counter proposal tomorrow. Believe we require further time for careful study and decision on any counter proposal and at tomorrow’s meeting I can confine myself to debate on ChiCom broadening our proposal, if Department concurs, suggesting form unilateral simultaneous declarations, say we are still studying and will have further observations later. Also will continue press Wang on release Americans along lines I followed at last meeting.” (Ibid.) Johnson’s telegram 317 from Geneva, August 5, is not printed. (Ibid., 611.93/8–555)

3. See footnote 2, Document 12.
4. Document 16.
5. See footnote 5, Document 18.