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

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

Geneva, December 12, 1957—2 p.m.

510. One hour fifty minute meeting this morning.

I opened with strong statement along lines paras 1, 2 and 3 Deptel 57 [557]² closing with statement on my transfer and designation of Martin.³

Wang closely questioned me on designation Martin “as to whether U.S. was purposely changing level of Ambassadorial talks” and therefore “nature” of talks. I replied along lines para 4 Deptel 546⁴ and Wang said would have to consult government. When, in reply my statement answer should be addressed Martin, he insisted reply only to me, I emphasized that as of close meeting today Martin was U.S. representative. He rejected my suggestion announcement be made concerning date next meeting and we finally agreed on announcement, that we had held 73rd meeting today and Ambassadors “stated an announcement would subsequently be made concerning the next meeting”.

He made proposal for agreed announcement on judicial assistance on basis “equality and reciprocity” and therefore “governments of two countries decided to appoint experts to start negotiations on substance and concrete arrangements of an agreement on judicial assistance between the two countries”. In original presentation and give and take laid heavy emphasis on fact U.S. District Court as instrumentality of U.S. Government had made request to PRC Ministry of Justice.⁵ I, of course, rejected along lines para 5 Deptel 557.⁶ He indicated they will issue public statement on this.

Full text draft agreed announcement on judicial assistance by separate telegram.⁷

Full report of meeting being pouched Friday.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–1257. Confidential; Niact; Limit Distribution.

2. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of telegram 557 to Geneva, December 10, read as follows:

   “Express dissatisfaction Chinese Communist continued failure permit return civilians desiring to do so. This question could have been settled in first week or even first day of talks by simple word and act their part. Should have been settled finally on September 10, 1955 when they agreed take measures permit Americans expeditiously exercise right to return. Yet six Americans remain in jail Communist China, 824 days later.

   “With regard question accounting for US military personnel missing unaccounted for from Korean hostilities, remind Wang he said at last meeting did not feel it necessary reply that question that morning. There been 50 meetings since question raised in talks. Surely on one [of] those mornings he could have offered request his authorities investigate matter and furnish information.

   “On renunciation force, most fundamental practical matter at issue, Chinese Communist attitude past year and half been one of unwillingness even discuss seriously.” (Ibid., 611.93/12–1057)

3. According to the full report of the meeting conveyed to the Department in an unnumbered despatch on December 12, Johnson concluded his statement as follows:

   “I desire to inform you that I am being transferred from Prague to a new post and it will therefore not be possible for me further to carry on these talks with you. However, my government persists in its determination and willingness patiently to seek a settlement of our differences and accordingly desires to continue these talks here. To this end Mr. Edwin Martin will be designated as the United States representative.” (Ibid., 611.93/12–1257)

   In telegram 546 to Geneva, December 4, the Department indicated, for Johnson’s information, that “You would not ask Wang designate another representative but we assume he would not wish continue himself under these circumstances and representative of appropriate rank would be appointed”. (Ibid., 611.93/12–457) In letter No. 62 to Clough, December 12, Johnson anticipated that the Chinese reply would be that they would be prepared to resume the talks at such time as the United States appointed an ambassador to replace Johnson, but that they would see little purpose in meetings at a lower level. If the Chinese did agree to continue the talks at a lower level, Johnson warned that “they are extremely sensitive on the subject of corresponding levels and we can be sure that even if they do agree to resume with Martin they will be very careful also to appoint a First Secretary, to correspond with Ed’s rank in London. This will, in fact, mean that their man will be considerably below Ed in competence and authority as Ed would normally be a Counselor in any post but one such as London. Thus any meetings Ed may have will be on an even more routine level than those I have been having. I think, for example, that they will refuse even to enter into any discussion whatever of matters such as renunciation of force”. (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva, US–PRC Talks, Misc. Docs. 1956–1957) Martin also felt that the Chinese would be unwilling to negotiate with him. In a letter from London to Clough on December 6, Martin wrote:

   “I think it virtually inconceivable that Wang will agree to negotiate personally with me and unlikely that he will agree at the meeting to designate another representative. While I concur in your judgment that the Chinese Communists are unlikely to break off the talks, I think they may be willing to see them suspended indefinitely on the issue of the level at which they are to be conducted. They may argue that just because the talks have bogged down is no reason to put them on a lower level. Progress is less likely at a lower level (their line may run) than at the Ambassadorial level, while if we are really sincere in our desire to settle differences, we should agree to talks on the Foreign Minister level. Thus the Chinese Communists may well take the occasion of Alex’s departure to renew their propaganda for Foreign Minister level meeting, though indicating willingness to continue at the Ambassadorial level. My guess is that they may hold to this position for some time, making clear that they are not breaking off the talks but simply waiting until we have seen fit to appoint another Ambassador to carry them on.” (Ibid., CA Files: Lot 60 D 648, Geneva, December 1957)

4. Paragraph 4 of telegram 546 to Geneva, cited in footnote 3 above, reads as follows:

   “If Wang refuses continue talks on proposed basis, insisting on ambassadorial level, inform him we remain ready continue talks but cannot designate ambassador for this purpose this time. You should maintain this position even in unlikely event Wang threatens break. If Wang suggests alternative basis for continuing talks, you may inform him suggestion will be reported Department but that for number compelling reasons only feasible basis at this time is one proposed by you. FYI Department believes it unlikely Chinese Communists will break off talks, especially in view Chou’s recent statement to foreign chiefs mission Peiping they ready continue talking ten or twenty years if necessary. In give and take you should be careful retain freedom action for US to propose restoring talks to ambassadorial level at some future time when this might be desirable. End FYI.”

5. According to a December 12 press release by the Chinese Delegation, the text of which was conveyed to the Department in telegram 512 from Geneva, December 12, the U.S. District Court of North California on September 3, 1957 addressed a request to the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China for judicial assistance in the case of “United States vs. John W. and Sylvia C. Powell and Julian Schuman”. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–1257) For background on the case involving the Powells and Schuman, see footnote 7, Document 231.

6. Paragraph 5 to telegram 557 to Geneva, cited in footnote 2 above, reads as follows:

   “If Wang proposes agreement on mutual judicial assistance in connection projected visit Communist China by defense counsel in Powell-Schuman case, advise him such agreement impossible and unnecessary. If Chinese Communists choose withhold cooperation with defense counsel in collection evidence for defense Powell-Schuman, this their own responsibility. US Government has no responsibility this regard.”

7. The Chinese draft agreed announcement on judicial assistance, as conveyed to the Department in telegram 511 from Geneva, December 12, reads as follows:

   “Agreed Announcement of the Ambassadors of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America concerning negotiations on judicial assistance. Ambassador Wang Ping-nan, on behalf of the Govt of the People’s Republic of China, and Amb U. Alexis Johnson, on behalf of the Govt of the US of A, agree to announce:

   “In order to give each other judicial assistance on the basis of equality and reciprocity, the Govt of the People’s Republic of China and the Govt of the US of A deem it necessary to reach an agreement on judicial assistance between the two countries. The govts of the two countries decide to appoint experts to start negotiations on the substance and concrete arrangements of an agreement on judicial assistance between the two countries.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–1257)