56. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State1
722. 1) I opened this morning’s meeting with a prepared statement along lines of Deptel 7182 closing with hope Wang would give me similar detailed information on implementation announcement. He replied with some general statements that wide publicity given in China and proposed US “present official text agreed announcement to UK” and they would do likewise with India “which would complete official procedures after which PRC would formally notify UK Chargé in Peking”.
2) I replied by asking series questions on method whereby Americans in China unable to read Chinese would obtain information on announcement, how those in jail would be informed, facilities for those in jail communicate with UK Chargé (particularly concerned this point as still 4 persons in jail from whom no letters whatsoever received) arrangements for UK Chargé interview Americans in jail when in accordance announcement US desires facts be investigated, meaning “prescribed period” within which Fathers Gordon, Hyde and Joyce ordered to leave,3 date and time 10 Americans notified last meeting will arrive Hong Kong, and specific information on health and welfare each American in jail not yet released.
3) Wang replied full text announcement would be carried in English language publications in PRC, those in jail would have announcement translated and read to them. Did not reply on freedom prisoners communicate with UK Chargé, said investigations by Chargé would be “in accordance with terms of announcement”, would subsequently inform me of anticipated dates of arrival Hong Kong released Americans and on health and welfare those still imprisoned. He then returned to his proposal formal text announcement be given UK by US and India by PRC. PRC will then give full information to UK on their responsibilities “entrusted” to them by US.
4) He then asked my assent to his speaking, on which I indicated I had nothing further to say this morning and indicated no objection. He then pulled out and read a long prepared statement to effect [Page 90] now that “agreement” reached on Item 1 should turn to Item 2 under which desired raise two points: US economic blockade and embargo and preparation for “negotiations at a higher level on easing and elimination of tensions in the Taiwan area”. Also asked what I thought should be discussed under Item 2.
5) At close his statement I said I had “noted it” and stated that I also had matters which I wished to discuss under Item 2 “at the proper time” but felt it was premature. “I cannot consider Item 1 finally disposed of until all Americans in PRC who desire return are able to do so.” “Agreed announcement represented advance but way in which carried out cannot but help influence atmosphere in which discussion Item 2 carried on.” Hoped we could quickly get to Item 2.
6) Wang apparently surprised and not prepared for my position which he characterized as very strange and regrettable. In much inconclusive give and take along these lines, I pointed out Item I could have been quickly and completely resolved if they had permitted all Americans return but 19 Americans still detained, etc In reply specific question as to when I would consider it “proper time” proceed Item 2, I stated “when it is clear the terms agreed announcement being faithfully implemented.”
7) At end of meeting when usual question arose as to what to say to press, he said “I will inform press of the two items I have raised and you are free to tell them what you wish”. I misunderstood and interpreted his statement as meaning only that he was going to tell the press we had discussed agenda Items 1 and 2, and replied that I was going to inform press simply that we had exchanged information on implementation agreed announcement. On comparing notes my advisors after meeting I am now clear that what he meant was that he was going to inform press two subjects raised his prepared statement this morning which he has done.4 Regret I did not realize this was his intention or I would have protested as contrary spirit our agreement on private nature talks.
8) Next meeting Tuesday, September 20.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1455. Confidential; Niact.↩
- See footnote 3, supra.↩
- Johnson’s detailed report of the meeting in telegram 725 from Geneva, September 14, indicates that the term “prescribed period” had been used in a New China News Agency announcement of September 11 with regard to the Reverend Frederick D. Gordon, the Reverend Joseph Eugene Hyde, and the Reverend James Gerald Joyce, Catholic missionaries who had been under house arrest since 1953 and were among the Americans who were to be deported. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1455)↩
- A memorandum of conversation by McConaughy, September 14, records a telephone conversation with Johnson that day, in which the latter proposed issuing a U.S. press statement to counter Wang’s. Robertson and Phleger approved, with some revisions in Johnson’s draft. (Ibid.) The text of the U.S. statement issued in Geneva that day is printed in Department of State Bulletin, September 26, 1955, p. 489.↩