283. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State1
235. One hour twenty five minute meeting this morning mostly devoted to correspondents. Wang proposed and I rejected draft Agreed Announcement (full text by separate telegram2). Under this PRC and USA “agreed to give permission, on an equal and reciprocal basis, for correspondents” to enter the respective countries. In rejecting I made exact statement in para 3 of Deptel 2443 including last [Page 602] sentence. At close of meeting Wang stated they were going to release text draft Agreed Announcement but did not indicate timing.
Wang opened with long statement in hard tone referring to my “general repetition of worn-out arguments” at last meeting and general attempt to place blame for lack of progress on PRC, “consistently hostile attitude” of U.S. and leading into correspondents by reference to cultural exchange proposal September 22. 1956.4 “In spite of US obstacles” Stevens, Harrington and Worthy came to PRC and “completed their press coverage”. In spite of stables [obstacles?] US youth delegation had also entered PRC and were being “warmly welcomed and with an abundance of good will”. “Does not this show that no official ban can prevent Chinese and American peoples from showing their demand for better contacts”. After nearly a year US had on August 22 under great pressure given permission certain number of correspondents visit PRC. “In same breath statement in entirely unreasonable terms refused accord reciprocal visas to Chinese newsmen. Subsequent statements have not altered this”. US August 22 statement set tasks for US correspondents in PRC and thus ulterior motive and US undisguised attempt interfere in PRC internal affairs all too clear. None could conceive PRC would accept August 22 statement which disregards reciprocity and equality. PRC believes exchange visits of correspondents is a practical and concrete step to improving Sino-American relations and therefore proposes agreed announcement. Text meets need for equality and reciprocity.
In reply I “found it astounding” that he had “entirely reversed” position he had taken last year when he had stressed PRC was not asking reciprocity for admission correspondents. Also under US laws and regulations impossible to assure reciprocity. Therefore in light these two facts statement reciprocity included August 22 statement. Also found it astounding that he now characterized entry of US correspondents many of whom were same men to whom they had previously extended invitations as undisguised interference their internal affairs. However, if they now desire exclude US correspondents that entirely matter their choice. PRC has not previously raised question of reciprocity nor has any PRC correspondent applied for admission to US. “If any journalist from your country desires to enter the US he is entirely free to make application to any foreign service post for [Page 603] a visa and it will be considered on its merits just the same as any other visa application”. “I am not in a position to enter into any agreement or understanding with you any more than I am with any other government that a full and equal number of correspondents be admitted to the US or that any particular individual will be granted admittance to the US. Neither do we make any such demand from your side. It is entirely up to your own decision as to whether you wish to admit any individual or any number of individuals”. Purport his subsequent statement was that Department’s statement on reciprocity in August 22 statement had entirely altered nature of questions and closed door on exchange visits of correspondents. Responsibility lies entirely with US.
I reiterated substance para 3 Deptel 244 and said that I expected they would consider application visas accordance their laws and regulation in same manner as US would do and that I would not attempt dictate their action any more than I would accept dictation from them our actions. If they decided refuse visas correspondents could not in any way shift responsibility to US. That was their own decision.
Full report of meeting follows by telegram.5
Next meeting October 10.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1257. Confidential; Niact; Limit Distribution.↩
The text of the draft Agreed Announcement proposed by Wang Ping-nan, as transmitted to the Department in telegram 234 from Geneva, September 12, reads as follows:
“Ambassador Wang Ping-nan, on behalf of the Govt of the People’s Republic of China, and Ambassador U.A. Johnson, on behalf of the Govt of the United States of America, agree to announce:
“The Govt of the People’s Republic of China and the Govt of the United States of America agree to give permission on an equal and reciprocal basis, for correspondents of the other side to enter their respective countries for news coverage in order to promote the mutual understanding between the peoples of China and the United States”. (Ibid.)
↩In paragraph 3 of guidance telegram 244 to Geneva, September 10, Johnson was instructed:
“If Wang raises question reciprocity re newsmen, remind him this reversal his position year ago when he stressed Chinese Communist invitation US newsmen not conditioned on reciprocal US action. If they now desire exclude American correspondents, that entirely matter their choice. If Wang requests assurances US will admit specific group of Chinese Communist newsmen or other exchange arrangement, advise him applications individuals will be accepted at any American Foreign Service post and considered on merits, like any other application.” (Ibid., 611.93/9–1057)
Johnson wrote of the meeting, in letter No. 59 to Clough, September 12, that “after these long months we again had a little excitement”. Johnson added that he was glad to learn, from his phone call to the Department after the meeting, that “everyone agreed that I had done right by immediately turning down his proposal rather than temporizing on it in any way until next meeting”. Johnson felt that if the Chinese “were really intelligent, from their standpoint, instead of just attempting to act clever, they would now give visas to a few Americans, have a few Chinese apply to us, and then indicate they were waiting to see what we did before acting on the other American applications”. (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva, US–PRC Talks, Misc. Docs. 1956–1957)
↩- See footnote 5, Document 210.↩
- Transmitted to the Department in telegram 240 from Geneva, September 12. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1257)↩