48. Telegram From the Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva1
677. Your 658.2 Agree text proposed announcement quoted reftel as good as can be expected.3 While we would like agreement as to time release Americans it should not be pressed so as to jeopardize agreement on proposed announcement. You should argue on Tuesday for time agreement but if not forthcoming you should indicate your agreement ad referendum that in next meeting (presumably on Friday4) there should be agreement on announcement quoted reftel and manner and timing thereof without our insisting agreement on time release Americans. Make clear however that word “expeditiously” means just that and we expect announcement to be carried out in that sense. Would like your views on timing of publication of announcement. We believe announcement should be simultaneous Geneva, Peiping and Washington or Denver at agreed time.5
FYI Following announcement we believe meetings should continue not oftener than twice a week at which the subject for discussion would be implementation and details and progress in carrying out agreed announcement. Discussion about item two should not be engaged in until it is clear that agreed announcement is initiated in good faith. Under such circumstances discussions can be had as to [Page 76] what should constitute item two on agenda. Such discussions should be recessed whenever it becomes apparent Communists are not carrying out agreed announcement in good faith.6
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–3155. Secret; Priority. Drafted by Phleger and Sebald, cleared in substance by the Secretary and by Robertson, cleared by McConaughy, and approved by Hoover. McConaughy wrote in letter No. 11 to Johnson, September 2, that Secretary Dulles had personally reviewed, amended, and approved the telegram the previous day before leaving for vacation and that at his request, McConaughy had flown to Richmond to get Robertson’s approval. (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)↩
- See footnote 2, supra.↩
-
Secretary Dulles commented in a letter of September 1 to the President:
“At Geneva, the talks with the Chinese are going better. It looks as though they would agree to release all of the American civilians ‘expeditiously’ and without any of the trick language they have been seeking which might carry implications of their legitimacy. Despite much discouragement, we have remained firm and patient, and it may pay off. Then, the next phase will develop. That, too, will be difficult. But as long as we are talking there is less risk to Quemoy and Matsu, and Formosa.” (Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, Dulles–Herter Series)
McConaughy wrote in his September 2 letter to Johnson that Robertson thought the wording “could hardly be better from our standpoint”, that the “very explicit terminology” made an express time limit unnecessary, and that “if the Communists did not release all the Americans ‘expeditiously’ in the literal sense of the term, they would be in an absolutely indefensible position.”
↩ - September 9.↩
- Telegram 682 to Geneva, September 3, instructed Johnson that the announcement should be released in Geneva. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–355)↩
-
McConaughy amplified on this in his September 2 letter to Johnson:
“It is clearly important not to get into the substance of Item Two until all the Americans are out. When we talk about ‘discussion about Item Two’ and ‘what should constitute Item Two’ we mean the topics that might be appropriate for acceptance under Item Two. Even this discussion of what would be appropriate topics should be recessed if the Agreed Announcement is not carried out in good faith. WSR’s last injunction to me in Richmond yesterday afternoon was to stress the importance of not getting into actual substance of Item Two until all the Americans are out and that includes of course the hard-core cases. We would probably never get the most difficult cases out if we move into Item Two while they are still held.”
↩