166. Telegram 684 from Geneva1
684. From Johnson.
With respect to remaining two disputed points in “agreed announcement” I feel we must and can retain “in any such case”. Wang’s motive for deletion is clear even though his argumentation is weak and there is no reason we should concede.
I do not feel “now” is of same order importance.
It originally appeared in Deptel 492 which was drafted in form joint statement in order meet point contained para 4 Deptel 466. Since then we have shifted to “agreed announcement” form of unilateral statements which do not have force of intergovernmental agreement and which it seems to me we are free renounce any time we consider such action justifiable and desirable.
Since that time I have continued to use word with thought that in PRC rpt PRC section it signified all Americans were as of date of statement able to depart. We are now accepting situation in which this not case and from standpoint Americans in prison key portion para is “will further adopt appropriate measures” and “expeditiously”.
While at today’s meeting Wang argued for its deletion from only PRC section and may well argue for its retention.
US section his motives are of course entirely different from ours. Certainly if retained in our section they will cite [Facsimile Page 2] as admission Chinese have in past not been free leave US.
Therefore believe it should be either retained or deleted in both sections and that its deletion from both sections would not materially weaken force of announcement. My ability accept deletion would also of course strengthen my negotiating position for retention of “in any such case”.
Also seems to me our interest now lies in getting announcement issued as quickly as possible so as accomplish release some Americans and bring into play public pressure on PRC for “expeditious” release remainder.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–655. Secret; Priority.↩