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

167. Telegram 687 from Geneva¹

Geneva, September 6, 1955, 7 p.m.

687. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 13th meeting today with statement that 12 Americans who we had said were being detained would be free to leave. He said on basis reviews completed following seven Americans could leave any time: Emma A. Barry, Ralph S. Boyd, Juanita B. Huang, Robert H. Parker, Mr. and Mrs. Howard L. Ricks and Eva Stella Dugay. Two Romanoffs who had recently applied exit permits could also leave. Charles Miner, now in process clearing up debts incurred by firms in his charge, was being given every assistance by local authorities and should be able to complete procedures in two or three months, at which time he also free to leave. James Edward Walsh had not applied for exit permit, but since not known to be involved in any unsettled cases, he also free to leave. Mrs. Huizer not on list of Americans in China and claimed by Dutch reps as Dutch citizen, however, she free to leave also and he said later her husband making arrangements wind up affairs so he too would be able depart. He added that cases of remaining American citizens who have committed crimes are different from these twelve. When agreement reached, their cases will be reviewed and in light circumstances of each and lenient attitude his govt reviews will be quickly conducted and we will be informed upon completion.

2. I said I appreciated the information he had given re Americans now free to depart. I then asked if I was correct in understanding that Chinese Communists had completed reviews some cases civilians accused of committing crimes and that he would inform me their names at time when agreement reached on agreed announcement.

3. Wang agreed.

4. I asked if those Americans whose cases had been reviewed would then be able to leave promptly.

5. He agreed.

6. I then said this brought us to what he had termed the “old question” of time it will require for his government to complete review of remainder cases. This central question I had raised in second meeting and we had been discussing it ever since. I could see no compelling reason why his govt could not if it wished release these persons immediately. Nevertheless I was willing accept simple statement of reasonable length of time during which release could be completed. But he had only told me that cases remaining Americans would be dealt with “expeditiously”. I had no way of knowing what he meant by this term. Furthermore he implied it dependent upon fulfilment various conditions. These conditions were such that his govt could at any time halt release Americans merely by alleging one or more conditions not being fulfilled. He was asking my govt accept most unsatisfactory arrangement. We being asked take certain concrete action in addition steps already taken to assist departure Chinese wishing return. However he giving me only vague promise re persons described as having committed crimes. Any reasonable person would understand my govt’s reluctance accept such vague arrangement.

7. I said he frequently referred to so-called obstructions hindering departure Chinese from US. I was satisfied these so-called obstructions nothing more than normal problems anyone encountered when he moved from one country to another. Between July 11 and August 31, 83 Chinese had departed US for Far East. It was thus clear that any Chinese perfectly free depart US for his country or any other destination. I emphasized my govt took all measures necessary this end without condition. We know number these persons reached his country because their arrival reported official broadcasts. I contrasted this fact with situation facing Americans in his country and fact that not one American civilian had been able depart during period our discussions. That is why it was so important to know in more exact terms what effect arrangements agreed upon here would have on Americans accused of having committed crimes.

8. Wang replied he had clearly, explicitly elaborated his position and he considered renewal demand for specific period time in which Americans would be released served no useful purpose in these talks. In reference statement at last meeting he denied questioning my good faith on statements I had made concerning action taken by my govt permit Chinese freely depart. Although he had information Chinese nationals and students departure still being obstructed he now prepared accept my statement there were now no restrictions on their departure and therefore willing accept agreed announcement. Despite my statement 83 Chinese departed US, none had left US and arrived in China since talks began and all those recently arrived had left prior opening of talks.

9. Wang then read prepared statement going over old ground repeating that if we continued insist on release guilty American civilians within specified time this raised question his good faith, violated his country’s sovereignty, was utterly unreasonable, and could not possibly be met. He said he had announced granting early release 11 airmen and today that exit permits would be granted 12 more. Also, once agreement reached, reviews remainder cases would proceed. All these acts showed they had repeatedly made efforts resolve question return American nationals.

10. I interjected he said 12 but actually Miner not able leave immediately.

11. Wang replied Miner being assisted every way possible by local authorities and speed settlement was influenced by his own efforts, he said if, as in Miner’s case, it were possible for them to give definite period of time they would do so but they could never give definite time regarding all cases. He said their solution explicit and clear and no question of vagueness in terms they used. But if we insisted on definition of period of time, then it would not possible for talks to make further progress.

12. I asked if my understanding correct that his statement cases of Americans could “easily be solved” applied also to those accused of crimes.

13. Wang said in light of conditions mentioned before their cases also would easily be solved.

14. I said I also understood their cases would be expeditiously handled in conformity with draft agreed announcement. He agreed.

15. I said I understood with respect to period of time it would not bear any relationship to time it had taken in past to solve some of these cases.

16. He answered that if agreement reached and relations between two countries improved and conduct of persons concerned was good then handling of their cases would be easier.

17. I then told him I could not consider his statements satisfactory to my government. Nevertheless in light of information given me this morning and relying on his statements remaining cases could be easily and expeditiously resolved, I was prepared recommend my government consider authorizing me agree on announcement along lines wording discussed at last meeting. I would do this also on understanding when we reached agreement on wording announcement, which I hoped might be at next meeting, he would immediately inform me results reviews completed cases of persons accused having committed crimes. I then gave him text agreed announcement (Mytel 682) saying it introduced no new changes.

18. After studying text, Wang suggested use full term “USA” instead of US throughout. After my explanation normal practice use abbreviated form after first mention, he agreed. After first objecting to deletion phrase “the Government of” from introductory paragraph each section he finally accepted deletion.

19. Wang objected to inclusion phrase “in any such case” conclusion para 2(A). He said very clear from context which cases referred to therefore unnecessary specify by adding phrase.

20. I asked if he agreed with sense of phrase but not the words. When he agreed, I said we would then like to keep words in order that English text be absolutely clear. He said he would consider.

21. Wang then raised objection to word “now” in para one Chinese section although he said appropriate to keep it in American section. He said people would misunderstand actual situation and think Americans could not depart from China before these talks whereas actually over 1500 Americans had left China.

22. I replied impression would be given talks had not accomplished anything and situation no different from past. Furthermore, paragraphs would thus be identical.

23. Wang said “now” should remain in American paragraph because in past we prevented Chinese from leaving and now we had removed restrictions, so word appropriate in American section but not in Chinese section.

24. I replied I could not see his distinction because thousands of Chinese had also left US before these talks. Furthermore, we had made concessions in order that both paragraphs could be identical and we had accepted phrase “and will further adopt” which did not really apply to our case, but we agreed to it in deference to his desires.

25. Wang said there was a great distinction between a country which restricted departure and one which did not. He would accept anything which conformed with actual situation, but not otherwise.

26. I replied sorry we were not as close to agreement as I thought we were. Furthermore, any American who desired to leave in past had not been able to do so.

27. Wang said he had not raised question of word “now” at last meeting because we had indicated this change from his draft.

28. I said if he would agree to this draft I felt sure we could reach agreement on text next meeting and release announcement. However, if his intention now to introduce concept different wording two paragraphs there were many changes to be made and entire question reopened.

29. Wang said most important word is “now,” and they could not agree on its inclusion their paragraph.

30. I replied if we eliminated it, it would make two paragraphs different and also it would indicate we were not announcing something of real substance.

31. Wang said no matter how we explained it, he could not accept the word. He then turned to discussion “in any such case.”

32. I asked again if he objected in principle to idea it conveyed.

33. He said idea completely contained in paragraph and not at all necessary add these words on end.

34. I said we should not leave anything implied that could be clearly stated. It was consistent with rest of paragraph and necessary to make meaning absolutely clear in English text. In this paragraph we were giving frame of reference to third government and it was doubly important to make clear to that government what its mandate was. I therefore thought important to retain phrase. He replied he would consider this point and reserve comment until next meeting.

35. I concluded that I had come tremendous distance to meet his point of view on substantive issue and I had indicated I was prepared to consider issuance announcement even though we did not feel situation with respect to Americans satisfactory. I hoped we could agree on wording so that I could request authority to issue statement. Wang said “me too”.

36. I then said I thought press should be promptly informed of names he had given me of those Americans who were now free to leave because our people very much interested. I read to him text my proposed release.

37. Wang agreed we could release information and read back to me announcement he had made at opening of meeting. There was implication he desired joint announcement or that we use substantially his wording.

38. I said he could make his own announcement and we would make ours in somewhat shorter form. After I accepted a few minor suggestions to make our announcement consistent with his own essential points, he said he had no objections to my proposals.

39. He then said announcement for his side would be made in Peiping.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–655. Confidential.