Office of the Historian

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

Geneva, October 10, 1957—2 p.m.

347. One hour twenty minute meeting this morning with no new developments.2

I opened with statement along lines paragraphs 1 and 2 Deptel 366.3 Wang’s reply was along familiar lines but with particular stress on “principles of equality, mutual benefit and reciprocity” and ended with correspondents which example of renewed U.S. violation of these principles. “PRC demands US subscribe to principle of equality and reciprocity.” In reply I stressed US interested in substance not words and that facts of performance under September 10 agreed announcement as witnessed by UK and India glaring example PRC failure carry out their principles. Then made point paragraph 3 Deptel 366.4

During course rebuttal Wang made statement that PRC had never tried prohibit Chinese correspondents going to US and Chinese correspondents make own decisions this matter which I picked up to reply that then there is apparently no problem, no Chinese correspondents having applied to go to U.S., apparently none desire to do so. Pointed out American correspondents travel to most countries of world including Communist countries and correspondents from most [Page 631] of those countries travel to U.S. without any agreements between governments. If any of those governments asked agreement similar that asked by PRC, our answer would have to be same as to PRC. At this point Wang conferred with aide and said he had nothing further.

I suggested next meeting November 7. Wang countered with November 14 and I accepted. Full report by pouch.

[Johnson]
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–1057. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.↩
  2. In letter No. 60 to Clough, Johnson described Wang’s mood during the meeting and appraised his own success: “There was nothing new at this morning’s meeting. He obviously had no new instructions, his performance was almost listless, and his replies entirely perfunctory. As you will also note he cut the meeting short. I feel that given the situation I made out very well today and that his position on the correspondents was very weak.” Johnson’s letter is misdated October 9; it should have been dated October 10, (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva, US–PRC Talks, Misc. Docs. 1956–1957)↩
  3. In the first two paragraphs of guidance telegram 366 to Geneva, October 8, Johnson was instructed to “Take Wang to task for increasingly evident Chinese Communist responsibility for preventing progress in talks.” Johnson was instructed to make particular reference to the Chinese failure to implement the Agreed Announcement of September 10, 1955 and to the Chinese refusal to renounce the use of force in the Taiwan area. (Ibid., Central Files, 611.93/10–457)↩

  4. Paragraph 3 of telegram 366 to Geneva reads as follows:

    “If Wang raises question newsmen’s travel and his draft agreed announcement of September 12, reaffirm U.S. position applications individual newsmen for visas will be considered on individual case basis. If Communist China wishes approve or deny newsmen visas on group or blanket basis, that matter its choice. U.S. will act in accordance its own laws, subjecting applications individually to criteria specified in law.”

    In letter No. 75 to Johnson, October 4, Clough wrote of the correspondent issue: “We feel we are in a satisfactory position if we continue to refuse any general agreement by holding the door open for any Chinese Communist newsmen to apply for a visa if he wishes.” (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva, US–PRC Talks, Misc. Docs. 1956–1957)

    ↩