74. Telegram From the Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva1
869. British Embassy reports O’Neill saw Chang Han-fu2 October 10. He inquired if Americans in prison had been given full text of Agreed Announcement in language they could understand and whether detained Americans entitled communicate with him. He recapitulated what Chou En-lai had said on this at luncheon Oct. 8 (London’s 54 to Geneva).3 Chang confirmed all this, but evaded O’Neill’s question as to when, where and how notification was conveyed. Apparently O’Neill thought it best not to put question as to whether he would be permitted to interview Americans who believed they were encountering difficulty in departure if US wanted facts in [Page 124] any such case investigated. Chang said he would like to hear O’Neill’s view on interpretation of Agreement in respect to questions put by O’Neill. O’Neill said he thought it meant that Americans in prison were entitled to communicate with him or to have access by receiving visits or other means. Chang then proceeded to rehearse generally Chinese case (review of cases one by one communication of results to O’Neill, etc). Said PRC would consider questions O’Neill had put and would let him have answer. They might then discuss situation further. O’Neill said he hoped he would have answer soon.
O’Neill says he got impression though it might not be worth much that he would not get entirely negative reply. Chang repeated O’Neill’s reference to visits to prisoners without brushing it aside and as though it might be feasible. He asked whether O’Neill had any further questions to put and seemed almost surprised that O’Neill did not have any. O’Neill adds in view of this it might be desirable that at next interview he should put some further questions if Americans so desire depending of course on manner in which interview develops. O’Neill suggests that he might ask for example on instructions how many of 19 have been tried already and what their sentences are. He adds that he realizes State Department may perhaps feel this would also be open to objection of accepting principle of trial before release. O’Neill remarks Americans may have been given this information at Geneva already in which case he would be grateful to have it.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–1255. Confidential; Priority. Drafted and approved by McConaughy.↩
- Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China.↩
- The telegram under reference, sent to the Department as telegram 1421 from London, October 10, described a conversation on October 8 between the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Alexander Grantham, O’Neill, and Premier Chou En-lai. Chou agreed that the Taiwan situation had improved since Bandung and stated that the Chinese hoped to solve the problem by peaceful means but added that the situation might deteriorate at any time because of harassing attacks on the mainland from Taiwan. He complained of the U.S. refusal to proceed to agenda item two at Geneva, stating that all Americans in China had been given the English text of the agreed announcement and that, although Johnson had been told this, he continued asking questions on matters which should be discussed by O’Neill in Peking. O’Neill said he would soon discuss with the Vice Foreign Minister the matter of communication with him by the imprisoned Americans, Chou agreed that this was a subject which could be pursued but stated that for the 19 “criminals”, the normal judicial processes must be followed and that O’Neill would be informed of the results in each case. He said that the Americans had proposed two points for discussion under item two: the need for renunciation of force as an instrument of policy, which the Chinese were prepared to discuss along with their own two points, and missing U.N. personnel from Korea, to which Chou strongly objected. When Chou referred at one point to talks at a higher level, Grantham asked whether this meant talks between himself and Dulles; Chou assented, saying that this had already been proposed by Senator George. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–1055)↩