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

203. Telegram 752 to Geneva¹

Washington, September 19, 1955, 9:26 p.m.

752. For Johnson.

1. Re your telephone call to Robertson today, on reconsideration Dept finds it difficult deal with only one phase Wang statement, thereby tacitly implying it has no answer to remaining Wang charges. Dept has decided to put out no repeat no press release on any aspect Wang statement and believes that any reply should come from you. Matter is left your discretion. If you decide take cognizance Wang statement with press, it may take form either press release or backgrounder for press as your judgment dictates. You might wish use something along following lines:

(A) Wang’s statement regrettably misconstrues motives and actions U.S. Sept. 14 statement based on fact U.S. had already announced measures to implement Agreed Announcement whereas Chinese had not yet indicated steps taken to release Americans except for those cases which had been reviewed. Chicom indication of steps proposed for implementing agreement appear to us to be first order of business and one that U.S. has already fulfilled.

(B) There is no basis for Wang’s contention that U.S. has prevented departure of Chinese. As of March 24 Immigration orders against departure from this country were outstanding for 129 technically trained Chinese students. Since then 36 rpt 36 have left this country and 3 rpt 3 more are reported about to leave. All now free to leave.

2. Wang’s action today does not appear to call for any change in your instructions (Deptel 745) except possibly in paragraph 5. If you believe that in light Wang’s latest action we go too far in exonerating him from any imputation bad faith, you may wish to strengthen tone of your presentation on unilateral public statements. Need for emphatic representations on this question further confirmed by Wang’s statement.

3. Immigration has not yet confirmed departure three Chinese, including Tsien, on Cleveland, September 17.

4. British Embassy has had no recent word from O’Neill in Peiping. We instructing Embassy London query Foreign Office as to whether PRC has yet extended invitation to UK Charge, and as to actual and prospective difficulties confronted by British Charge.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1955. Secret; Niact; Limit Distribution. Drafted by McConaughy and Lindbeck; approved in draft by Robertson.