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

138. Telegram 625 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 25, 1955, 7 p.m.

625. From Johnson.

1. Eleventh meeting, August 25th, was opened by Wang who commented upon our August 23 text proposed announcement (Deptel 599). He said they discovered many changes from Chinese text of August 18 and wished make a few revisions. He had three principal points to make:

2. (A) Replace word “promptly” by “as soon as possible”. Commented in their original text did not have these words but willing insert them to meet our request.

3. (B) Add to paragraph one American section “and will further adopt” measures enable nationals return who wish to do so.

4. (C) Add wording indicating third powers invited by respective sides and agreed to by other power. He commented this in line with international practice and as far as they were concerned conformed to actual situation.

5. Wang concluded by handing me his proposed text and remarking he prepared agree to remainder language we proposed. (Text by Mytel 617).

6. I said word “promptly” was very important, and in fact vital we have clear understanding between us what we meant by this word. However, if we use “as soon as possible” this would change sense of sentence very considerably. Whatever term we used, we must have clear understanding what it means even though it may not be included in the proposed announcement or be made public. By this I meant it must be precisely defined in terms of reasonable period of time in which all remaining Americans whose departure being prevented would be able return. If that could be done I thought we could quickly reach agreement on text. I asked if Wang could define “as soon as possible” in precise terms of time more clearly than he had done so previously and state just what this meant as far as return of Americans was concerned.

7. I commented further that statement US “will further adopt measures” seemed unnecessary. US already had adopted measures permit prompt return Chinese and we knew of no further measures we could adopt.

8. Wang replied phrase “as soon as possible” meant cases would be handled “very quickly not slowly”. He had clearly stated PRC recognized right Americans return US. Chinese would review cases so that they could return as soon as possible.

9. Regarding phrase “will further adopt measures” Wang said appropriate include this in statement regarding American actions because although preventive orders removed by American Government there were still difficulties because measures taken not sufficient or authorities low level failed carry them out. Therefore US Government should take further measures enable Chinese nationals in fact return as soon as possible.

10. I remarked if “as soon as possible” meant cases would be quickly reviewed why not use either “quickly” or “promptly”. Wang replied “promptly” implied certain amount obligation in response to order.

11. I replied this not at all meaning in our minds.

12. Wang said “as soon as possible” more appropriate and meets actual situation so far they were concerned.

13. I then said whatever term used, vital we have clear understanding what word means with respect to time. This kind of terms used in agreements between governments are apt to cause misunderstanding unless clearly understood. It may have entirely different connotation in his mind from mine. If in his mind it connoted one year or something in that order, that was one thing. If it connoted two or at most three months, that was something else. Vital we have clear understanding what this means. If not, fear agreement this nature may give rise increased misunderstanding rather than improve state relations between our two countries.

14. Wang said his phrase meant they would deal with cases quickly and there would be no delay in their review. He said solution of cases involved a number of factors, including conduct of people concerned, whether or not agreement reached as result these discussions and whether relations between two countries developed favorably. He concluded impossible for him give definite period of time in view these various factors.

15. To illustrate point, Wang said release airmen excellent example. Last year someone proposed that Chinese specify definite time when airmen might be released. Longest sentence was Col. Arnold’s of ten years. Impossible for Chinese last year to specify time required airmen’s release. Only after airmen had proven good conduct and talks at Ambassadorial level agreed upon, then Chinese advanced time airmen’s release in accordance their own juridical procedures. He said they had indicated Chinese would review remaining cases Americans and permit their return as soon as possible. Impossible for him to give in any more beyond this limit. He would not say anything which his government could not do. If he promised anything, his government would live up to it without question.

16. In reply I asked Wang if he would disagree my statement very important we each understand what we were agreeing to and that we not agree to words which have different meaning to our two governments. I was very disappointed no change in position of Wang evident to enable us arrive at clear understanding what we meant by words we were using.

17. Wang agreed clear understanding essential or agreement would be empty. He said arrangement designed to resolve problem return our respective nationals and it had been made clear his side would promptly inform us on results review as soon as agreement reached and his government would adopt measures review other cases as soon as possible. He was sure if this arrangement were made known to American public it would be clear that question was settled.

18. I replied if this arrangement were made public American people would expect Americans return from China mainland “very quickly” as he had phrased it, but Chinese idea and my government’s idea concerning “very quickly” were quite different. Result this misunderstanding would be expectations of American Government and people would not be realized and this would lead to increasing misunderstanding and deterioration of relations rather than improvement that we both hoped for.

19. Wang said improvement or deterioration depended on action by both sides not one and if I insisted on definite period of time he was afraid we could not reach agreement.

20. I then made statement in which I said I understood from him that as reviews cases Americans completed and cases settled the Americans would be able promptly to return. In August 11 meeting he had told me reviews completed on some cases involving Americans and it was my understanding their cases had been settled. That was two weeks ago and none of these Americans had been able to depart. If I understood his position it was that these Americans would not be able to depart until we had reached agreement here. I found this fact very hard to reconcile with my understanding Americans were able to depart upon settlement cases in which they may be involved. Also hard to reconcile with fact that my government had without condition taken all action necessary in response his request to permit prompt departure from US any Chinese who desires return to his country. I wanted make very clear no Chinese being held my country pending our agreement here. It was entirely impossible for me or my government to see why our failure thus far to reach agreement on public announcement has prevented departure any Americans whose cases favorably reviewed. If we were to deal here on basis equality and reciprocity at least these Americans should be able to return immediately. I could not help avoid conclusion that fact these Americans not able return appeared due other than purely legal or juridical reasons. Also hard avoid conclusion that as far as return of remaining Americans concerned that also would be based on other than purely legal or juridical reasons. This attitude on part Chinese made it all more essential that a clear understanding be reached on period of time during which it would be possible complete release and return to US of all Americans now being prevented from leaving.

21. I continued saying I expected and hoped when I came that it would be possible for us reach agreement on basis each our governments adopting measures permitting all those desiring return in fact do so. My government took necessary steps so we could make such announcement this regard. I next thought it would be possible agree they could be released simultaneously with our announcement. Now, however, I had gone another step and accepted his position that some Americans will be released later, although I do not see any reason for delay. All I asked him now was that he give me definite statement regarding reasonable time in which steps will be taken by his government in order remainder cases may be completed. This seems very reasonable position and I did not see how it was possible go any further. We came to discuss return our nationals and settle that question. I did not see how simply vague statement that some will be able to return in unknown time in the future and only under certain conditions, one of which has no relation to juridical and legal processes involved, settles matter of return of citizens.

22. Wang replied he could not agree to discuss things which governments both sides unable to accomplish. He said Chinese in US had not committed crimes and so it was not reasonable for US Government to impose restrictions. Furthermore if we had reached agreement two weeks ago Americans whose cases had been reviewed would already have returned to US. Responsibility for their failure to return was not Chinese.

23. He continued that legal and juridical aspects of the cases of Americans were closely linked with agreement on proposed announcement. If agreement reached, that would mean not only that PRC willing improve relations and settle questions but also that American Government had this desire. Agreement on announcement would show both sides sincerely working for this goal. To talk much about sincerity in reaching settlement but refuse to come to agreement does not give appearance real sincerity. He said only because of real sincerity, PRC has reviewed cases of airmen who according Chinese legal procedure could not have left for very long time. Chinese in making review took into account improvement of relations and act was one of leniency and not part their juridical procedures. Airmen released out of consideration for success of talks. Therefore improvement relations between two countries will make it easier for remaining cases to be settled. This is a lenient policy their part and they link this action with agreement in order to show their sincerity. If no such sincerity present he saw no reason for his side to continue taking unilateral lenient steps.

24. I said he had spoken frankly and I would do the same. He had indicated there was relationship between release of Col. Arnold’s group and holding of these talks. He had also clearly indicated relation between return of those Americans whose cases had been reviewed and our reaching an agreement here. I did not now know what relationship there might be between release remaining Americans and whatever future agreements his side might wish to have made. I wanted to say bluntly I did not come with intent to and would not trade fate of Americans in his country prevented from returning for political agreements or concessions he might desire. I was willing discuss each problem on its own merits. I did not ask for nor expect concessions of that nature from his side in return for actions we took regarding Chinese in US. I had also indicated willingness enter into arrangement on assistance to Chinese in US who wish to return. I was not and could not enter arrangement unless we had clear understanding between us as to what action would be taken concerning Americans. I could not consider statements he made regarding action proposed by his side as being satisfactory. I had come long way meet his position and hoped and expected he would be able come a little way to meet mine.

25. Wang returned argument Chinese in US had not committed crimes and although announcement made restrictions lifted they still encountered difficulties in fact whereas no restrictions on Americans in China. He concluded that if I asked whether measures had been taken to speed review of cases Americans to permit their return, answer was “yes”. If I asked for understanding on time it would require, answer was “no”.

26. He indicated willingness close meeting at this point and I agreed. Usual end of meeting fencing omitted.

Gowen

Note: Advance copy to Mr. McConaughy (CA) 5:45 p.m. 8-25-55 CWO/FED

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2555. Confidential; Priority.