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

250. Letter From the Secretary of State to Arthur H. Sulzberger¹

Washington, April 30, 1957.

Dear Arthur: I have your letter of April 23.² I am convinced that our Far Eastern policies, of vital importance to the United States, would be gravely impaired if there were a general influx of Americans into Communist China at this time. There are many reasons for this, so many that when we sometimes refer to one reason and sometimes to another we are charged with being “inconsistent”. I could list here, if time permitted, twenty reasons which are cumulative such as the non-recognition of the regime, so that we cannot issue a “passport” to it; the existence of a quasi-state of war and the continued application of the Trading with the Enemy Act; the illegal jailing of Americans already in China despite promises to let them out; the effect upon free countries of Asia of what the Chicoms would plausibly claim to be a resumption of “cultural exchanges” with Communist China; the increased prestige and influence of Communist China in the area that would be consequent, etc., etc.

Suffice it to say that those of us who have responsibility in this matter have soberly and definitely come to the conclusion I expressed.

I have discussed this problem informally with a number of leaders in the newspaper field. One of them made the suggestion that the newsgathering fraternity might agree to some “pooling” arrangement as has sometimes been the case in the past. I felt that, if so, we might be able to accept that without the unacceptable consequences to which I allude. I emphasize the idea was not one that I originated or initiated; it was an idea brought to me by a responsible leader in the newspaper field. I am inclined to think that he and others who have examined this proposal now feel that it would be impractical to agree to bring about an acceptable limitation. But what concerns me is that the reasoning which leads responsible members of the newsgathering fraternity to conclude that they cannot draw lines as between themselves points up the difficulty of the Department’s drawing lines as between “responsible” newsgatherers and what you call “frivolous journalistic adventurers”. Also I see no valid distinction between newsgatherers and those members of other professions who claim a constitutional right to travel, once travel for a profession as a whole is allowed.

It did seem to me that since, as you say, it would be “necessary to guard against frivolous journalistic adventures by people more interested in visiting China than reporting what is going on there”, and since the Department itself cannot well establish that guard and make the differentiations that would obviously be called for, the newspaper fraternity might do that themselves. Then they might arrive at a result which the Department could accept.

You suggest that our policy with respect to Americans going to China “abridges the freedom of the press”. The constitutional “freedom of the press” relates to publication, and not to the gathering of news. There are, of course, many occasions and many areas where, for security or policy reasons, newspaper correspondents are excluded. Also you suggest that we are “using the press as an instrument of our diplomacy”. But United States foreign policy inevitably involves the acceptance of certain restraints by the American people. If it were not so, foreign policy would be impotent. When young men are drafted and sent abroad, they are used as instruments of foreign policy. When business people are not allowed to trade with Communist China, they might equally argue that they are being used as instruments of our diplomacy. Foreign policy and diplomacy cannot succeed unless, in fact, it channels the activities of our people, and in this respect newspapermen have also their loyalty and patriotic duty.

I assume you are aware that the Chinese Communist regime is seeking to develop intercourse with us as an instrument of its diplomacy.

Sincerely yours,

John Foster Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 911.6293/4–2357. Drafted by Dulles and approved in FE by Robertson and in P by Assistant Secretary Andrew Berding.

2. In his April 23 letter to Dulles, Sulzberger questioned the Department’s restrictive policy on travel to China by newsmen and concluded:

   “I understand the great difficulties in this matter and am reassured by your effort to find a fair formula. As things now stand, I cannot escape the feeling that the Administration is abridging the freedom of the press and using the press as an instrument in its diplomacy. I agree that other principles are involved, but in the long view this one seems to me to be fundamental.” (Ibid.)