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

116. Telegram 566 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 20, 1955, 6 p.m.

566. From Johnson.

1. At 9th meeting today I opened by reading prepared statement. I said our two governments agreed first purpose discussions was to settle matter return civilians who desire to do so. I had told Wang exactly and precisely what we have done and are prepared to do regarding Chinese in US and of arrangements we willing make for their assistance by Indian Embassy. I repeated I was still waiting hear settlement proposed regarding American nationals desiring return and, while not attempting dictate action to be taken by Chinese, emphasized purpose our talks was to discuss all civilians desiring return. I concluded futile to discuss form of words used in public announcement until both clear in our minds substance of what we were announcing. Therefore difficult for me see how we could make further progress until this was done.

2. Wang reverted to his line argument last meeting accusing us raising same old points and introducing nothing new. Stated if we agreed to text announcement then he would tell procedures his government willing take and results cases of Americans which have been reviewed.

3. I then asked series simple, direct questions in attempt further clarify his exact position.

4. I asked if his government was reviewing all civil and criminal cases involving Americans. He replied he had answered this question in affirmative many times.

5. I asked whether as soon as governments agreed arrange third party assistance for civilians who wished return he would inform us results cases Americans reviewed. He agreed.

6. I asked whether reviews cases all Americans completed. He hedged. I stated implication was that all not completed. He returned to standard formula that they would advise on results when reviews completed. Later he stated very clearly reviews had been completed on some but not the others.

7. I then asked whether completion review meant that persons concerned would be able return promptly to US. He replied clearly that they could depart China promptly.

8. I asked whether possible give estimate time required complete reviews remaining cases in accordance laws and procedures his government. He replied time required complete reviews depended upon two factors: (1) nature of cases involved, which included conduct of persons themselves; and (2) the state of relations between our two countries. In amplifying latter, he said these talks represented improvement. Also their release of “guilty” airmen done in effort improve relations. Later he added agreement on third party representation would also constitute improvement relations.

9. I stated it takes two to improve relations and that I knew of no single thing which from our standpoint would do more to improve relations than reaching solution on question return our nationals. Added that if he could state specific period time required to review cases Americans and permit them return, this would be of great help in improvement relations. Wang replied impossible and unrealistic predict time required such review, but if agreement reached on representation and relations between our countries improved things would move easier than in the past. He commented he could not expect me to say when Chinese students would be able leave US. I replied immediately that I could and repeated my categorical assurance when he endeavored qualify it.

10. At this point he began reading long prepared statement reviewing all points he brought up at last meeting. These included: their alleged willingness agree our text; their assurance they had made greatest effort reach agreement and responsibility for failure not theirs; claim that Americans at no time were prevented from leaving China and more had left proportionately than Chinese had left US; statement all cases were being reviewed and civil cases could leave upon reasonable settlement while criminal cases would receive lenient treatment; and their objection that our insistence release all Americans held constituted interference their law and juridical processes which they could never accept.

11. Statement concluded alleging difficulties Chinese students departing US due harassment by immigration officials, delays due loss their files by authorities, inconvenience due confiscation of funds sent for their travel and intimidation students go to Taiwan or apply for refugee status in US. He said some recently returned Chinese received official obstruction even after they had left US and obstruction extended even to Hong Kong. He said these criticisms concerned only ordinary Chinese in US and I could not tell him offhand how many more Chinese were detained and jailed under federal and state laws due to unfinished civil and criminal cases. He requested our side investigate such cases and added third party would also look into matter. He concluded on theme which he emphasized often before to effect that demands amounting to infringement on their sovereignty and juridical process could not be tolerated.

12. I said in reply only that I knew of no Chinese who desired return involved in what he termed unfinished civil and criminal cases and furthermore that if he would provide me with names I would immediately look into any cases Chinese whose departure had been interfered with by official acts contrary to statements I had made.

13. Wang closed meeting by saying if we failed agree on announcement it was not his responsibility as they had made their greatest effort. He said he could not provide me with names of Chinese students in difficulty lest our actions against them should be even more unfavorable.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2055. Confidential.