142. Telegram 630 from Geneva1
630. From Johnson.
Re Mytel 617 and Deptel 633 following our comments on Wang’s redraft:
1. Doubt that Wang is attaching as much significance as we to term “nationals” but my negotiating position in now obtaining its complete elimination is not good. Also seems to me undesirable attract too much attention to it. Term appears only once in both Wang’s August 11 draft [Typeset Page 179] (Mytel 402) and August 25 draft. It was much more extensively used in draft given Wang August 15 (Mytel 463) which was based upon draft contained Deptel 466. Also first sentence Wang’s August 25 draft where this term appears is identical with first sentence our August 16 draft. With respect “return” vs “repatriation” it seems to me former term preferable even though latter was used in July 25 statement by two governments. “Repatriation” could carry connotation of force unless modified by “voluntary” and status of belligerency between parties whereas “return” is broader term and avoids undesirable connotation of “repatriation”.
2. (A) While Wang obviously attempting give “agreed announcement” greatest possible character of agreement between two governments believe he has valid point that our phrase “will authorize” does not accurately represent fact that request to GOI made by PRC and US is accepting that designation. Same situation mutatis mutandis with respect UK.
(B) On other hand “agrees” as used in Wang’s text would also [Facsimile Page 2] inhibit our ability unilaterally to cancel arrangement unless “agreed announcement” accompanied by understanding or unilateral US statement on time limit for release Americans which if broken by CHICOMS would give basis for cancellation.
(C) To meet these points suggest consideration following language “US accepts designation by PRC of GOI to assist return to PRC of those Chinese who desire do so as follows”.
(D) Foregoing language also eliminates “entrusted”.
3. Believe important delete “on behalf of the PRC” because protecting power connotation. I would propose argue not applicable case US as payments if any would in most cases probably be on behalf family or firms. PRC can make whatever arrangements it wishes reimburse GOI, need not be mentioned “agreed announcement”.
4. Concur deletion words “in any such case” would appear give basis GOI investigate any case at PRC request. Believe we should insist on restoration this phrase.
5. Cannot reach decision on most appropriate wording for “promptly” until tactics for next meeting determined. Several different words could be used, important thing is that whatever word used there be common understanding of what it means.
Note: Mr. Waddell (FE) notified 8/26 5:20 pm - E.H.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2655. Secret; Priority.↩