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

180. Telegram 709 from Geneva¹

Geneva, September 10, 1955, 7 p.m.

709. From Johnson.

At 14th meeting today, after trying to get Wang to speak, I opened by stating there was little I could add to what I said last time regarding the inclusion of two phrases in text agreed announcement: “now” in paragraphs one and “in any such case” in paragraphs 2 (A). I had explained importance we attached to inclusion these two phrases in text agreed announcement. I had hoped Wang would agree with me on this text and that we could issue it today.

Wang replied he also wanted agree on text of agreement very quickly. Two sides had identical opinion regarding major portion text and it only remained to resolve two points of wording I had mentioned. He continued both sides had mutually discussed text statement for long time and each had put forward amendments in order make statement consistent with actual situation and to facilitate return nationals by this agreement. We should not at this final stage get into argument preventing agreement.

Wang said regarding “now” in their part of statement, any words must be consistent actual situation, therefore, not acceptable include “now” in his part. In past years great numbers Americans returned from China, indicating civilians always able return. Therefore, not reasonable at final stage discussions insist “now” should be included his part. If failed reach agreement on this point he did not see how they could agree at all. They would consider carefully anything reasonable but, as they indicated during course of talks, anything not consistent with facts was not acceptable his side.

I said I understood him to say now only two points outstanding were these two phrases, and he agreed. I stated I was prepared make suggestion I hoped he would take. I willing delete “now” in both his section and my section of statements.

Wang insisted word should be deleted his section and included our section and this more reasonable and appropriate because this was merely statement of fact affecting nationals both sides. In past Chinese had no restrictions on departure American nationals and overwhelming majority returned US. Those who remained were very small handful. However, in America restrictions prevented return Chinese students. He appreciated these restrictions now withdrawn. However, to satisfy public on this point and show difference two situations it was important have word “now” in American section. There were restrictions on Chinese students before, now they have been raised and thus a change has been made. Status of nationals on two sides different so two sections announcement should also reflect this different status our nationals in past.

I replied I did not intend engage in long discussion, but if we introduced idea our two sections in announcement should be different, this opened up entirely new field and we would have to reconsider wording whole paragraph. For instance, I had accepted “and will further adopt” in paragraph one which I did not think necessary, but included in order have same wording as his section. We would have to make this and other changes if two sections not identical. I said I must make clear that suggestion I made was maximum effort our part reach agreement and issue announcement. I entirely unable accept his suggestion “now” remain in our section and be deleted from his. I made my suggestion only on condition that rest of text remained exactly the same and on that basis we could issue announcement today.

Wang replied he also wanted promptly settle this question. He said inclusion phrase “and will further adopt” in order to make two paragraphs identical was reasonable and necessary. This phrase was same in both sections because reason for it was same. It indicated that in future if nationals two countries encountered difficulties, governments would assist them in departing. If this phrase were deleted governments would not have to help nationals encountering difficulties in future. He said he failed to see why not appropriate retain “now” in only our paragraph.

I replied I understood he rejected my suggestion regarding deletion “now”.

Wang smiled and said my suggestion resolved only half of problem.

I said I had made very clear I could not consider making this difference between two sections and suggested we agree on basis my suggestion which I believed met both points of view.

Wang said we had raised two points of difference and that he would be willing consider deletion “in any such case” from both sections if we would consider his proposal regarding “now”. He believed meaning of paragraph 2 (A) sufficiently clear without inclusion “in any such case”.

I said my suggestion regarding deletion “now” was based understanding remainder text would remain unchanged. I had met his objection word “now” and believed text should be issued with that change. He might consider phrase “in any such case” unnecessary, but he said it was consistent with rest of paragraph and because consistent, and in order paragraph remain clear, I insisted that it must be included. I said that at last meeting he did not object to principle behind “in any such case”; thus after six weeks discussions we came down to one word “now” and I had made suggestion it be deleted. I could see no reason further discussion or delay agreement on text.

Wang said from outset they had wanted reach agreement. Then suggested further compromise in which he would delete both “now” and “in any such case” from his section and we would retain both in ours. Thus desires both sides would be met and each would meet point raised by other. Thus they had given consideration my suggestion.

I said this introduced even greater differences in two paragraphs and as soon as we did this we would encounter whole new host of problems. Actually only difference between us was the word “now” in our section. I was entirely willing leave word in both sections or take out of both sections and I left choice up to him.

Wang said we could also delete “in any such case” from both sections, but I insisted it must be retained. Wang then repeated his earlier arguments and continued maintain his proposals were reasonable.

I said Americans to leave China all required obtain exit permits whereas in US no exit permits required and thousands Chinese able freely depart except group 120-odd whose restriction orders have since been withdrawn. It would be extremely difficult try to reflect all these facts in single sentence. I did not see any purpose in trying to cover again all ground we had been over. I made suggestion quickly this morning with idea it would enable us quickly reach agreement on announcement. Wang said we will reach agreement if we are both willing to do so. He suggested although his earlier proposal very reasonable, he now willing consider deletion both phrases “now” and “in any such case” from both sections. Thus both sections identical and he had made substantial compromise.

I rejected his suggestion saying at beginning of meeting I had suggested deletion “now” on understanding remainder statement would remain unchanged and I could not agree deletion phrase “in any such case” from our section.

Wang said my side might be satisfied but that his was not and no purpose served continue argument. Main point was he wanted announcement reflect exact situation as it was and solve question return civilians. Under these circumstances, although he not satisfied with two points I had raised, he would make greatest effort we could expect of him and delete “now” in both sections and retain “in any such case” in both. He said he could not go any further to meet my request.

I accepted his proposal and asked whether remainder of text would be same as my draft text of September 6. We exchanged texts and after checking, he raised question why I had deleted word “respective” before “governments” in introductory paragraph.

I explained it deleted in order make smoother English text and not to change meaning in any way. Following some discussion I agreed to include it.

Wang then said in second paragraph Chinese text he had words “the question of” preceding “Chinese”. I remarked that if we said “with respect to the question of Chinese” instead of “with respect to Chinese” it involved some difference in substance.

Wang explained it was necessary to use this wording in Chinese because we were not discussing all the tens of thousands of Chinese in the US but only the question of those who desired to return.

I said it was very clear as it stood, and addition of this phrase introduced new ideas. It was very clear from introductory paragraph we were discussing “measures” taken by respective governments and obviously remainder announcement referred to these measures. If we introduced word “problem” or “question” it would break-up central thought which was “measures” taken by governments.

Wang asked if we agreed inclusion “the question of” in Chinese text and leave English text as it was. I agreed. He then asked if title for announcement could be made to read: “Agreed Announcement of the Ambassadors of the USA and the PRC”. Our title “Agreed Announcement” was very simple and not very formal.

I objected that such a change made title longer and said there was virtue in simplicity. Full subject was already stated in opening paragraph. However, after some discussion I agreed to use full title as given in Chinese text.

At Wang’s request I initialed changes inked in on carbon copy September 6 draft and he furnished me with clean copy Chinese announcement. He then said, “have we reached formal agreement?”

I replied “we have now agreed to release the announcement”.

Wang asked if we could release it simultaneously at 5 pm Geneva time, as that was most convenient for Peiping. I said I was prepared agree earlier hour but 5 pm acceptable.

Wang then read from a prepared statement. He said he was glad we had finally reached agreement at our 14th meeting after long discussion. In accordance with his earlier statements he wished to advise me of the results of the reviews of cases of Americans who had committed crimes: first, his government had decided upon the early release prior to completion of terms of their sentences of three Americans: Harold W. Rigney, Walter A. Rickett, Levi A. Lovegren. Second, following seven Americans would be deported: Lawrence Robert Buol, Frederick D. Gordon, Joseph Eugene Hyde, James Gerald Joyce, Dilmus T. Kanady, Dorothy Middleton, Sarah Perkins. These 10 Americans who had violated laws of China would be deported to Hong Kong within a few days.

He continued that, with respect to other American civilians, cases would be individually reviewed in consideration of agreed announcement and with regard to crimes committed by each one. We would be advised from time to time of results these reviews through office of Charge d’Affaires of UK in China.

I thanked him for this information and said I hoped in accordance with announcement other cases would be expeditiously handled and settled. I hoped that in addition to informing Charge of UK, Wang would also inform me here during course of our talks.

He replied they were prepared inform us through UK. He added he hoped US Government would help Chinese in US overcome difficulties and depart.

I said I prepared tell him at these meetings steps we took to implement announcement.

He replied he happy agreement completed and they were prepared faithfully to implement. He hoped from now on nationals of both sides would in fact enjoy right of return to their homelands.

After close meeting he fervently shook my hand while expressing pleasure we had reached agreement.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1055. Confidential.