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

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

Geneva, September 20, 1955—3 p.m.

745. 1. At today’s meeting two hours ten minutes, apparently on theory best defense is offensive, Wang opened with statement accusing me of violating understanding on private nature talks reaffirming desire to keep talks private.

2. I replied with statement explaining my misunderstanding his intention at last meeting, pointing out his statement disclosed substance his remarks therefore required me make public substance our position. Regretted his statement yesterday,² noted I had made no response and hoped “I will not have to do so”. Glad he agreed meetings should continue to be private. This followed by some give and take on whose fault but reaffirmation of agreement on private nature talks.

3. I then made reply his letter along lines paragraph 5 my 740³ adding only Indian Ambassador today discussing with Department responsibilities being assumed.

4. There was then long give and take with Wang on one hand trying twist my remarks into statement we had “invited” UK and “agreed” to PRC invitation to GOI. I expressed surprise Wang’s effort make issue out of this, pointed out clear language agreed announcement, and emphasized substance of situation, that is, US had immediately taken all action implement agreed announcement with respect to third countries, India now able function in US, UK apparently still not able function in PRC. Said it was imperative they take with UK action similar that US had taken with GOI. Wang said PRC had extended “invitation” to GOI and Nehru had announced in Parliament its acceptance. Towards end I pressed hard for statement PRC would contact UK Chargé Peiping and do necessary permit UK immediately start functioning. After unsuccessfully pressing me hard to say we had “invited” UK in accordance with announcement he apparently chose to accept my statement that we had informed UK and requested it undertake functions and while avoiding direct reply my insistence that PRC contact UK Chargé, appeared to indicate they would do necessary permit UK function.

5. I then made statement on publicity agreed announcement Chinese press in US and referred to unanswered questions I had asked him in last meeting specifically pointing up health and welfare each American not released and information on agreed announcement to Americans still in jail.

6. On health and welfare he countered by renewing demand for names and addresses all Chinese in US but avoided direct reply to my question as to whether he now refusing give me information on health and welfare Americans in jail. With respect informing Americans in jail he said “I told you last meeting what is done and that still holds”.

7. After some additional give and take along these lines during which I expressed disappointment he had no information for me today on implementation, I made statement accordance paragragh 7, Deptel 745.

8. Wang made impromptu reply to effect that understanding at outset of talks was that either side could bring up anything it considered be practical matter at issue, not possible settle all practical matters at issue these talks, therefore higher level meeting necessary. Such meeting also desired by “some high American officials”. I made no reply and he indicated nothing further say today suggesting next meeting Friday, September 23, to which I agreed.

9. There was then considerable discussion as to exact wording of statement to press.⁴

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–2055. Confidential; Niact; Limited Distribition.
2. Wang’s statement, released to the press on September 19, took issue with Johnson’s September 14 statement to the press and declared that the talks should proceed immediately to agenda item two. Johnson transmitted the text in telegram 741 from Geneva, September 19. (Ibid., 611.93/9–1955)
3. See footnote 3, supra.
4. The agreed statement released to the press after the meeting stated that the Ambassadors had “exchanged information with respect to the implementation of the agreed announcement and exchanged views regarding item 2 of the agenda.” Johnson transmitted the text in telegram 743 from Geneva, September 20. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–2055) Johnson commented in telegram 747 from Geneva, September 20, that Wang’s attitude at the meeting that day was “deliberately much more brusque and in general harder than at any previous meeting” but that, although Wang had pressed for discussion of agenda item two, “there was no move on his part to bring matters to a head and I felt no necessity of using authority given me in paras. 6 and 8 Deptel 745.” (Ibid.)