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

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

Geneva, November 15, 1956—1 p.m.

508. One hour fifty-five minute meeting today.² I made opening statement pointing out progress thwarted by PRC unwillingness agree disputes would be settled by peaceful means only and PRC failure carry out agreed announcement, leading into McCarthy case³ including charge UK has not even been permitted carry out clearly specified function investigation facts, and noting no reply UK Chargé’s August 23 letter⁴ requesting interview other prisoners.

Wang replied with somewhat perfunctory restatement their position last meeting on futility talks, deadlock and necessity for FMC, then shifting over to implementation. Additional example US obstruction was FBI investigation into Chinese students’ correspondence with families which “fresh threat against those wishing to return and violation agreed announcement”. On McCarthy stated his sentence expires June 1957, familiar restatement question right return does not arise prior to release, UK permitted interview accordance prison regulations but McCarthy refused. Referring US proposal Indians interview prisoners in US said this only “screening in disguise” and list prisoners given Indians incomplete. “If US wants UK Chargé be able contact US prisoners on own initiative US should give Indians list of all Chinese in US concerning [including?] all those in prison and agree Indian Embassy can contact Chinese in US on own initiative in unrestricted manner”. Nevertheless if UK Chargé receives request from US prisoner in PRC interview will be permitted if it takes place conformity regulations. During course subsequent discussion also referred “Walter Robertson’s aide-mémoire”⁵ June 1 to Indian Embassy stating Chinese prisoners in US not covered by agreed announcement. Thus US position has been self-contradictory.

There was extended give and take on implementation during which I vigorously attacked all aspects their position on Americans in prison. He was clearly on defensive. During course his defense he charged not single Chinese prisoner had returned from US. During course reply I stated “was now in position assure him that not single alien Chinese desiring return remains in US prisons”. He rejected this as fact but did not press me for details and I [did?] not amplify.

At close meeting when he made pro forma statement hoping US Government would have something say next meeting on FMC proposal, I said had already made our position clear and when he replied they “didn’t feel it was satisfactory” I sharply retorted that I not satisfied with responses his government and would like to see some efforts their part carry out agreement already reached. Also added that in view retrogression situation Americans in China” it would have been better if we had never made agreement”. Meeting ended on this sharp note.⁶ I proposed next meeting Thursday, November 29 but agreed his proposal Friday, November 30.⁷ Departing Prague tomorrow.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–1556. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.
2. This meeting had been scheduled for November 2. In telegram 480 to Geneva, October 29, Johnson was instructed to request a postponement in light of recent developments in Eastern Europe which made his presence in Prague essential. (Ibid., 123–Johnson, U. Alexis) Johnson replied, in telegram 456 from Geneva, November 1, that Wang had agreed to postpone the meeting until November 15 “for administrative reasons”. (Ibid., Central Files, 611.93/11–156)
3. Johnson was instructed, in guidance telegram 531 to Geneva, November 13, to continue to use the McCarthy case as an illustration of the Chinese failure to carry out their commitment to release the Americans held in China expeditiously. The Department considered that the McCarthy case represented a “major weakness in Communist position” which Johnson “should exploit to maximum”. (Ibid., 611.93/11–1356)
4. No copy of this letter has been found in Department of State files. Telegram 51 to Prague, August 27, contains the text of a telegram from the British Charge in Peking to London reporting on his August 23 request to visit American prisoners in China. (Ibid, 611.93/8–2756)
5. See footnote 4, Document 181.
6. In his expanded comments on the meeting in telegram 514 from Geneva, November 15, Johnson characterized Wang’s approach to the meeting as a “marking time operation”. Although Johnson had pressed Wang sharply on implementation, “his responses were defensive and relatively mild”. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–1556)
7. On November 15, Johnson wrote to McConaughy, in letter No. 49, concerning the continued Chinese participation in the talks: “I still feel that I was right about their intentions as of the end of the last meeting but they have postponed action for reasons about which we can only speculate”. (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)