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

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

Geneva, September 28, 1955—4 p.m.

790. 1. Wang opened this morning’s meeting with long prepared statement to effect agreed announcement completed agenda item one, we were entangling agenda items one and two, if our intent was delay discussion agenda item two until all remaining Americans released “this sure to fail”, will not submit to threats, etc., etc., suggested if we had any “specific opinion” on implementation announcement PRC willing give consideration and that discussion thereof be referred to assistants. Will inform UK results of reviews as completed. Criticism US implementation, 76 who applied for departure whose names we previously gave him 42 not yet returned, none has returned who left since beginning of talks, knows of no one who has left US to return to China except Tsien, students fearful to apply for departure, etc. Our attitude will “impair the improvement of Sino-American relations and is bound to have a bad effect on our lenient way of solving the problem remaining Americans”.

2. I replied with long statement stating no need spend much time on these subjects if he would give me straightforward answers to my straightforward and simple questions on implementation, unless were willing to keep each other fully informed on implementation will be difficult to make progress discussion other matters, implementation too important to leave to assistants, then refuted his statements on Chinese students in US, welcomed statement they willing give consideration suggestions on implementation, pointed out my repeated questions this regard, repeated them and also re-framed as suggestions asking for specific replies, in referring statement on threats said I could not understand how my questions on implementation could be interpreted as threats, he could be certain we would not respond to threats, PRC should be absolutely clear we not willing trade fate remaining persons for political concessions. Three weeks since agreed announcement and not one of 19 yet released, our concern increases with passage of time no information on this vital point, only prompt full and faithful implementation announcement can dispose agenda item one, only implementation words of announcement can dispose of problem return of Americans, until this accomplished first item of agenda remains first order of business, have returned to it today and will continue to return to it as long as questions remain.

3. I then took note of fact 10 imprisoned Americans arrived in Hong Kong and some of 12 had also arrived and in expectation PRC will act expeditiously with remaining 19 and further effort demonstrate our desire talks should progress, desired discuss with him today topics which we should discuss under agenda item two. Referred my rejection of higher level meeting and put forward two subjects “renunciation of use of force for achievement national objectives” and “accounting for US personnel”. Consider renunciation of force of fundamental importance to discussion agenda item two, should therefore be discussed before economic embargo. Therefore suggested subjects in order of (a) accounting US personnel² (b) renunciation of force and (c) economic embargo.

4. In reply Wang reiterated previous points on implementation and then referring my suggestion renunciation of force as topic read short prepared statement which was largely non sequitur in terms of what I had said but repeated usual Communist line “not wanting war with US, PRC had renounced force in international relations, tension in Formosa Straits caused by presence US forces” etc All this could be resolved only by higher level meeting. Expressed puzzlement by what I meant under subject “accounting for US personnel”, said thought this taken care of under agenda item one.

5. In reply I returned to implementation repeating my questions and again also reframing as suggestions asking for reply next meeting. Then briefly discussed higher level meeting repeating previous position and adding his proposal indicated pessimism which I did not share on what two of us should be able to accomplish. Pointed out I had presented our two items in as neutral terms as possible and would be prepared subsequently discuss them.

6. He then stated prepared to continue discussion next meeting but wanted to make clear had not committed himself on subjects or their order. I agreed and he accepted my proposal for Wednesday, October 5 for next meeting.

7. He tried hard obtain press communiqué omitting reference to discussion implementation agreed announcement but we finally agreed upon communiqué identical with that of last meeting. He said would not regard this as precedent for communiqué next meeting.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–2855. Confidential; Niact; Limited Distribution.
2. Telegram 798 to Geneva, September 27, instructed Johnson to propose “Accounting for U.S. Personnel” as a subject for discussion under agenda item two. A correction was sent on September 28 instructing him to change this to “Accounting for U.S. Military Personnel” but Johnson reported in telegram 796 from Geneva, September 28, that the correction had not arrived until after the meeting. (Ibid., 611.93/9–2755 and 611.93/9–2855, respectively)