Office of the Historian

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

Washington, August 14, 1955—9:27 p.m.

495. Your 457 and 458 presumably crossed our 4922 which authorizes you to agree to joint statement as urged by Wang. This is only concession you should make at August 16 meeting apart from minor drafting changes not involving matters of substance. No retreat position as suggested by proposed substitute paragraph in latter part your 4583 authorized and no possibility of any retreat position should be intimated.

We believe it essential to hold tenaciously to our basic position on return of all detained nationals as part of any agreement on representation before we proceed to discussion of Item 2 of Agenda. Wang is eager to obtain representation arrangement and to open up Item 2. If we yield on these key points before we obtain firm commitment [Page 39] covering all our nationals we are left without any suitable pressures which we can exert on behalf remaining detained nationals. It would be doubtful if we could obtain their release without responding to new demands made by Chinese communists under Item 2.

You should maintain unremitting pressure on Wang for acceptance our principle, relying heavily on statements in Chou’s July 30 speech that “The number of American civilians in China is small and their question can be easily settled” and “it should be possible …4 to reach, first of all, a reasonable settlement of the question of the return of civilians to their respective countries.”

Draft text “agreed announcement” your 457 [458] approved subject to observations below based on our 492.

(a)
In Para. 1, first sentence, “Chinese mainland” preferable to “PRC”. You may concede this point if you consider advisable.
(b)
In same sentence, “now” should be inserted before “entitled” and before “prevented” to make clear that declaration is subject to reasonable termination.
(c)
Your Para. 2 believed slightly less desirable than Para. 2 our 492, in that latter accords clear right of investigation to Embassy after initiative taken by a national entitled to return.

You should cable us promptly exact text you propose submit.

If you are unable induce Wang accept “agreed announcement” at August 16 meeting, you should express your regret at necessity for another meeting on Item 1.

Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1355. Secret; Priority. Drafted by McConaughy; cleared in draft by Dulles and Sebald and in substance by Robertson. McConaughy wrote in a letter of August 15 to Johnson that Robertson had seen his telegrams 457 and 458 (supra and footnote 2 thereto) before departing for 2 weeks and “could not have been more emphatic in his reaction that we should not give up our main trading points in return for half a loaf or less. He felt that to do so would mean throwing in the sponge when we may have come close to the point of agreement on all the Americans. His view was generally shared by all who were working on the matter including the Secretary.” (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)↩

  2. Telegram 492 to Geneva, August 13, drafted by Dulles, authorized Johnson to agree to a joint statement and transmitted a draft, which reads as follows:

    “The USA and the CPR have respectively declared on the one hand that Chinese nationals in the US who desire to return to the Chinese mainland are now free to do so, and on the other hand that US nationals on the Chinese mainland who desire to return to the US are now free to do so.

    “If any national so entitled to return believes that contrary to the above, he is encountering official obstruction to departure, he may in the case of a Chinese inform the Indian Embassy in the USA, and in the case of a US citizen inform the UK mission to the CPR which may investigate the facts and intervene on such civilian’s behalf. Furthermore, these missions may render financial assistance needed to permit any civilian to return.

    “Wide publicity will be given in each case to the provisions of respective declarations and the referred-to missions may also give appropriate publicity.” (Ibid., Central Files, 611.93/8–1255)

    ↩
  3. See footnote 2, supra.↩
  4. Ellipsis in the source text.↩