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

154. Telegram 661 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 31, 1955, 8 p.m.

661. From Johnson.

1. I opened 12th meeting today by handing Wang revised draft agreed announcement incorporating changes Deptel 654. Full text my remarks and draft as given Wang being forwarded air pouch tomorrow.

2. In my remarks I noted changes from and similarities to his August 25 draft noting (a) I had added “will further adopt appropriate measures” to paragraph 1 US section this to be applicable to authorization to be given GOI; (b) use of “will authorize” in paragraphs 2; (c) restoration “in any such case” in paragraph 2(A) to make clear functions to be performed only with regard to those who desire return; (d) deletion “on behalf of government of” paragraphs 2(B) on grounds assistance to Americans largely from private sources. PRC could make whatever arrangements it wished with GOI; and (e) suggestion restoration July 25 language in introductory para.

3. I concluded that on important question time his phrase “as soon as possible” not satisfactory and urged acceptance “promptly” instead. I emphasized essential point was for both to clearly understand what term meant and expressed hope he would be able define for me much more clearly than in past and terms of definite period of time further appropriate measures to be taken by his government which would enable all detained Americans exercise their right return.

4. Wang studied our draft carefully and commented in detail.

A. He said “return of nationals” had been used in our August 16 draft and conformed with announcement on agreed agenda made following first meeting August.

B. “As soon as possible” was translation they desired for Chinese term (chin su) and they felt “promptly” has feeling of compulsion. He added however as each side had own opinion on appropriate word perhaps best find another English translation while retaining original Chinese. He suggested “expeditiously”.

C. In paragraph 2 he said [garble—the] phrase “US agrees that [garble—GOI is entrusted] to assist” implied authorization. However they willing delete “US agrees” and simply say “GOI will be entrusted to assist”. Since announcement comes as result Ambassadorial discussions such a statement would imply agreement on part our two governments.

D. He agreed to deletion “on behalf of PRC (USA)” in paragraphs 2(B). He concluded that they had with these changes met requirements our side to a very large extent.

5. I replied that his draft still contained word “entrusted” while ours contained “authorized” which expresses exactly and more clearly what each government will do. I asked if he would be willing use “authorize” in place of “entrusted”.

6. Wang said “authorized” did not convey same feeling of politeness toward third power which they were trying to indicate by using word “entrust” which implied request.

7. I said possibly we could use “request”.

8. Wang objected because “request” too had some feeling of an order in Chinese which he did not desire in speaking of third party.

9. I agreed to see if we could find a suitable word. I then said in introductory paragraph announcement we simply returned to language our two governments used in July 25th announcement. After considerable discussion in which it appeared he was objecting to word “repatriation” but not to “civilians” I agreed consider “return” in place “repatriation”.

10. Wang then read introductory paragraph leaving out “who desire to return” following word “civilians”.

11. I asked that “who desire to return” be included. He replied it was naturally included by implication and had not appeared in agenda announcement of August 1st. He said not necessary include “who desire to return” because so explicitly stated in succeeding paragraphs that arrangement applied to persons “who desire to return”. He said introductory paragraph intended give general idea of problem, details of which spelled out later.

12. I said I thought we could agree to elimination “who desire to return” from introductory paragraph.

13. I then suggested in paragraph 2, we could use word “invite” instead of “entrust”. Wang agreed to use of “invite” in English text and said they would keep original Chinese (wei t’o) which meant substantially same.

14. I said I would consider it. With respect his substitution “expeditiously” for our word “promptly” I agreed to consider it although I did not feel “promptly” had the meaning he was giving it. I then repeated that I considered it vital that we have clear understanding what the word will mean with respect to release of Americans. I added I was anxious for anything further he could tell me concerning timing their release.

15. Wang then resorted to prepared statement. He said they had considered text of “agreement”, as a result it appeared we were fundamentally agreed on wording and expected no further problems in wording. He welcomed fact that as result efforts made, distance now dividing us had been lessened. He said now we seem to be returning to old problem of trying to define “expeditiously” in exact terms of period of time. He said they had made clear their position on this old problem many times, but as I had raised question again, he would repeat their viewpoint. He said in past meetings I had insisted they should release all Americans in a specified time before improvement relations between China and US could be brought about. But it was his opinion such a position was devoid of any justification because Americans detained not ordinary Americans but violators of Chinese law and handling their cases was Chinese sovereign right. Chinese had released 4 American prisoners in May and 11 more before commencement these talks, but guilty persons must be treated according to Chinese juridical process and impossible predict time limit for handling their cases. Chinese Government would continue reviews and lenient policy would be extended only if agreement reached and relations between the two countries improved.

16. He said at last meeting I had charged him with relating political concessions to release Americans. This accusation surprised him since Americans concerned were law breakers. Showing leniency toward them as result improvement in international relations was not “exploiting them” for political concessions. On contrary he said we were asking for concessions when we insisted on reaching agreement only after they released all Americans. They hoped agreement would be reached regarding civilians but they would never give up their sovereign rights. He then repeated familiar arguments that: his side had made greatest concessions; his side had provided list all Americans; we refused list Chinese; his side was giving lenient treatment Americans but we were obstructing departure any Chinese and they were greatly dissatisfied present state of affairs. He said very few Americans in China, and Chinese Government had offered easy and simple solution their return. However, Chinese had “tens of thousands of nationals in the US” and their return depended upon US implementation of agreement.

17. He concluded by saying we had spent much time on text and he would like to know if we could reach agreement on announcement today.

18. I replied I was very sorry his statement did not add anything to what he had previously said which would enable us to make further progress today. I had not suggested anything which would infringe upon their sovereignty and it was for them to decide what they would do with respect to Americans. I had not said we would not conclude understanding until all Americans were released. I had made many concessions, first hoping all Americans would be released during talks, then that they would be released simultaneously with announcement and now I was asking for interpretation of word “expeditiously” in terms of reasonable period of time. I was disappointed it was still impossible for him to give me even that statement.

19. I said his statements regarding treatment Chinese in US called into question good faith my statements this regard. I was satisfied facts not correct but if he would give me information I would immediately look into any cases he knew of.

20. Wang said problem now has boiled down to question of defining “expeditiously” in terms of a period of time. He said Chinese sovereign right did not permit him to say they would release Americans at any given time irrespective of their juridical procedure. If they gave tomorrow or some other time in future not much different from saying Americans would be released right now. They could only say they would give results when reviews completed and with favorable conditions review would be carried out very quickly. This he said was greatest extent to which he could go today. He then repeated his statement great dissatisfaction regarding status Chinese nationals in US, complained his govt had no complete list and that since opening of talks not a single Chinese national had been allowed freely to return to China. He had mentioned case of Dr. Tsien but even he not able to return yet.

21. I tried to probe further by saying he must have something in mind as to meaning “expeditiously”. His government must be thinking in terms of one week, several months or several years.

22. Wang laughed and said nothing would come from discussion of this point. They would talk only about things of which they were sure. However, it would be easy for him to give the length of sentence of each American imprisoned. It was not possible to say how much these sentences could be shortened. Col. Arnold was sentenced to ten years and yet was given early release. Speed-up release Americans linked with reaching of agreement and improving relations.

23. I asked whether he could give me a definite time after the announcement was issued.

24. Wang replied issuing of announcement would show progress in improvement relations which would help to settle remaining cases.

25. I said if he could tell us now about some cases, why not give us a definite time on remainder?

26. Wang said not possible deal with all cases at once or give them all same treatment as they differed in various respects. I then stated I was sorry no further progress had been made this morning and hoped he would tell me something more definite at next meeting. I suggested in order he have time for full consideration this important question we meet on Tuesday, September 6.

27. Wang agreed immediately. Smiled and said he hoped I would have good news for him.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–3155. Confidential.