Office of the Historian

46. Telegram From the Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva1

Washington, August 29, 1955—8:20 p.m.

654. Your 630.2 Instructions for August 31 meeting.

1.
Propose solve problem reference “nationals” by returning to phraseology of July 25 identic announcement: “repatriation of civilians who desire to return to their respective countries”. Object is to avoid any language which might be construed as implying that US acknowledges that any Chinese in this country have PRC nationality.
2.
It should be specified in announcement that we are authorizing GOI to act. It would not seem essential for announcement to take note of fact that PRC has requested GOI to act. If necessary obtain agreement, we would be prepared consider insertion of modifying phrase such as “which has been requested by the PRC to serve in this capacity” following “will authorize the Government of India.”
3.
You should stand firm on: (a) refusal to use term “US agrees”, (b) avoidance “on behalf of the PRC”, and (c) restitution of phrase “in any such case”.
4.
Satisfactory definition of maximum time period for release of Americans considered essential.
5.
If you consider it would be useful, you may state you have been instructed to request immediate, circumstantial and authentic report on health and welfare each detained American civilian. Then you should point out cumulative deleterious effects of prolonged imprisonment of sort to which Wang’s Government has subjected US citizens grow rapidly more pronounced after several years have elapsed. Letters from numerous relatives indicate increasing anxiety on this score. In this context you may suggest next meeting be fixed for date on which this report will be ready or in any event not before next week.
Dulles
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2655. Secret; Priority. Drafted by McConaughy, cleared in draft by Phleger, and signed by the Secretary.↩
  2. Johnson commented on the Chinese draft of August 25 in telegram 630 from Geneva, August 26, sent in reply to Department telegram 633, Document 42. Johnson commented that he doubted Wang was attaching as much significance as the Department to the term “nationals” and that since it was more extensively used in the U.S. draft of April 16 than in the new Chinese draft, his negotiating position on this point was not good. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2655)↩