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

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

Geneva, August 25, 1955—2 p.m.

616. Two hour five minute meeting this morning. No progress.

Wang presented re-draft of “agreed announcement” very close our August 23 text² except for substitution “and declares that it has adopted and will further adopt measures so that they can in fact return as soon as possible” for latter portion US section our August 23 draft and substitution “and declares that it has adopted and will further adopt appropriate measures so that they can exercise as soon as possible their right to return” for latter portion PRC section our August 23 draft.

(Full text showing other apparently minor changes by separate tel.)³

I said his amendment para one US section not necessary as we had already taken all necessary measures but focused attention on substitution “as soon as possible” for “promptly” in para one PRC section.

In fact virtually all of meeting centered around my continued effort obtain definite statement on definite period of time during which remaining Americans would be released and Wang repeating this “could never be done”, “impossible” and repeating virtually verbatim his previous line this regard.

During course much give and take I took line contained para two Deptel 622⁴ and after he had in reply clearly related release of flyers to decision hold these meetings, release Americans whose cases review completed to our agreement to “agreed announcement” and again gave “state of relations” as one factor in timing release remainder, I very bluntly stated I had not and would not trade the fate of Americans detained by them for political concessions or agreements they desired obtain. Said it seemed clear to me what he was saying was that release remaining Americans would be dependent upon whether in future I willing to agree further agreements desired by them. This I would not do. I was prepared deal with each problem that we discussed on its own merits, we had taken action respect Chinese US without condition and without attempting extract political concessions from them in return.

I had first hoped and expected they would promptly release all Americans thus paralleling action taken by US with respect Chinese, we could thereupon quickly agree on announcement of what each country had done and announce agreement on representation. I had then attempted obtain his agreement that release Americans would be simultaneous with announcement and had now gone to position that only some Americans would be released at time of announcement (even though I had previously made clear was no justification withholding their release for this reason) and only asked that he give me definite time limit in which remainder would be released. “I do not see how it is possible for me to go any further.”

I also argued at some length that agreement on words in announcement without clear and common understanding exact meaning would not contribute to “improvement of relations” in future but could only lead to misunderstanding. If “as soon as possible”, “promptly” or whatever word was agreed upon meant to them a period of for example a year “that was one thing” but if it meant period of “two or in any event not more than three months that was something else”. Said whatever word or phrase this respect was used American people would expect very prompt action on release remainder and if this did not eventuate “state of relations” could not but deteriorate. From our discussion thus far very clear PRC concept of “as soon as possible”, “quickly”, “promptly” very different from ours. Could not reach any agreement on words until we were clear what we were talking about.

Wang did not contest my statement release remainder would be conditional on political factors. Now quite clear “political hostage” aspect does not shock them. On contrary they are clearly proceeding on premise that release of Americans is political act of grace and therefore directly related to other political factors in relations between two countries. This position more frankly and clearly stated today than ever before. It was almost complete retreat from “legalities and juridical procedures”.

Next meeting Saturday,⁵ 10 am.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2555. Confidential; Niact.
2. See Document 34 and footnote 2, Document 38.

3. Johnson transmitted the text of the new Chinese draft in telegram 617 from Geneva, August 25. It was headed “Agreed Announcement of the Ambassadors of the PRC and the USA”. The introductory sentence stated that the two Ambassadors had “agreed to announce the measures which their respective governments have adopted with respect to the return of nationals of each located in the country of the other.” Paragraph 2 in the Chinese section reads as follows:

   “(2) The PRC agrees that the Government of the UK will be entrusted to assist in the return to the USA of those Americans who desire to do so as follows:

   • “a. If any American believes that contrary to the declared policy of the PRC he is encountering obstruction in departure he may so inform the office of the Chargé d’Affaires of the UK in the PRC and request it to make representations on his behalf to the Government of the PRC. If desired by the USA the Government of the UK may also investigate the facts;
   • “b. If any American in the PRC who desires to return to the USA has difficulty in paying his return expenses, the Government of the UK may, on behalf of the Government of the USA, render him financial assistance needed to permit his return.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2555)

4. Supra.
5. August 27.