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

227. Telegram 772 from Geneva¹

Geneva, September 23, 1955, 10 p.m.

772. From Johnson.

1. At 1715 meeting, lasting one hour forty-five minutes, today I opened with prepared statement.

2. I informed Wang that Dr. Tsien Shue-shen had departed Los Angeles September 18, and 56 other Chinese had departed on same ship. 151 others had departed by other means, so that cumulative total of those who had left for Far East between July 11 and September 21 was 380.

3. As I informed him at our last meeting, Indian Ambassador was that day discussing with Department carrying out in US responsibilities of GOI set forth in our agreed announcement. Those discussions were quickly and successfully concluded and Ambassador informed Department that Embassy of India was immediately undertaking to discharge its functions in this regard.

4. I had given him foregoing information as further evidence that my government was faithfully carrying out obligations it assumed in issuing agreed announcement. As I had told him repeatedly, and as agreed announcement confirmed, all Chinese in US who desired to leave were free to do so. Furthermore my government promptly took all necessary action so that GOI might undertake in US, at earliest possible date, functions provided for under agreed announcement. My government was taking every possible action faithfully and expeditiously to fulfill obligations assumed under agreed announcement.

5. On other hand, I had only very limited information as to extent his government was fulfilling obligations which it had assumed under agreed announcement. In first place, although my government acted immediately to permit GOI undertake in US its responsibilities under agreed announcement, I did not have any information whether Government of the UK was yet able to carry out its responsibilities in his country. I hoped he could give me definite information in this regard.

6. I said I was also disturbed by fact that at our last meeting he did not give me any additional information concerning further appropriate measures being taken by his government so that 19 Americans still in jail could expeditiously exercise their right to return. Principal reason that it took us so long to formulate and issue agreed announcement was not only due to fact that his government refused release all Americans detained in his country, but also because he had refused even to state how long it would take before all Americans could be released. However, he had said that if we could agree on and issue agreed announcement, it would not only be possible to release a number of Americans immediately, but that this would also facilitate release of the others. He had assured me that his government would act promptly to complete review of these additional cases. We had agreed on word “expeditiously” in agreed announcement, Chinese equivalent of which he explained meant “very quickly.” Although I had not been satisfied with lack of an express statement on when all Americans would be allowed to leave his country, I finally accepted his assurances that time would not be long.

7. Nearly two weeks had now passed since issuing of agreed announcement. Of twenty-two people on whom he had told me action was being completed to permit their departure, nine had come out, and we looked forward to early arrival of the others. However, with respect to 19 others I have still heard nothing. I was beginning to be concerned over his government’s interpretation of word “expeditiously.” Not only had none of these 19 persons been released, but he had refused to tell me anything about their present health and welfare, to confirm whether they had been individually informed of terms of agreed announcement, to say whether and how long they would be permitted to communicate with British Charge d’Affaires, or to say whether latter would be permitted interview them. His refusal thus far give me this information regarding implementation of agreed announcement increased my concern over these 19 Americans and raised serious question in my mind as to whether his government would permit these persons depart “expeditiously” as provided in agreed announcement.

8. I said that at our 15th meeting he had said he regarded it as “peculiar and regrettable” that I expressed unwillingness to begin discussion of item two before it was clearly apparent that agreed announcement issue under item one was being faithfully implemented. I could not agree with him on this. It seemed to me that when two parties were attempting to settle issues between them, only the faithful carrying out of obligations assumed could establish essential basis of mutual confidence for going on to settle other issues. Surely, it was not going to be possible for us to settle other issues until each of us was satisfied that other party was promptly and effectively implementing undertakings arrived at under item one of agenda. Once his government had, by its action, demonstrated that it was expeditiously carrying out terms of agreed announcement this would clear path for discussion of issues which each side wished bring up under item two. I hoped that his government would promptly act with regard to this matter so that we could quickly proceed to those discussions.

9. Wang said, first he wished formally inform me that in formal note to his government, Government of UK had said it accepted invitation of Government of US to take care of American nationals in China. In formal reply to Government of UK on September 22 PRC had agreed that UK would assume functions in China set forth in agreed announcement.

10. He said after some 40 days of discussion agenda item one regarding return of civilians we finally reached agreement and this item had now been disposed of. Question now before us was faithful implementation of agreement by both sides. His government was entirely willing to carry out agreement faithfully and he hoped US Government would do same. After agreement had been concluded both sides respectively invited third powers perform functions provided for. Therefore, for implementation of agreed announcement in future we would especially rely on government of third powers entrusted by each side.

11. Reference had been made in my statement to the 19 Americans who had committed crimes and to others being detained in his country. He resolutely opposed allegation that Americans being detained. Only US Government had illegally detained Chinese in US. Innocent Chinese nationals had been illegally detained by US. This action was violation of legal freedom of Chinese nationals and also violated practices under international law. As to Americans in China his side had never detained any of them. Those who were in prison had been prosecuted according to Chinese law because they had violated Chinese law. Recently a number of Americans who had violated Chinese law had been released. He was sure I was well aware of crimes they had committed in his country because their account had been reported in newspapers. All of them had admitted they had committed crimes and also admitted they were punished lightly. According to statements made by Americans themselves they admitted they had carried out espionage. He asked if any aliens in US had right to carry out subversive activities against US Government. Were all those in US jails Americans, or were there also some aliens?

12. He said I had put forward repeated claims regarding the 19 Americans and that he had repeatedly made clear his government’s stand. He had made clear his position in a spirit of maximum conciliation. His government had reviewed a number of cases, had released a number and had advanced release of a number who had committed crimes. As to remainder, he had made clear his government’s attitude on way their cases would be handled and that had been made a matter of record in our talks. PRC willing to conduct reviews of cases in light of agreement, in accordance with degree of each offense and also taking into account improvement of relations between our two countries. When results these reviews available, his side would inform third power concerned.

13. He said he had made very clear his government’s position on countless occasions, but in spite of this I again put forward question of 19 Americans. He recalled I had on more than one occasion stated I was not attempting interfere internal affairs or violate sovereignty of China. However, it hard for him to explain why I again brought forward question 19 Americans if it was not interference in juridical processes and violation of sovereignty China. His country had no desire violate sovereignty other states but on other hand had no intention permit anyone else violate its sovereignty.

14. He said reference had been made to idea that agreed announcement should be implemented immediately without regard for fact that not all Chinese in US could return immediately to China. This interpretation of agreement was being used as pretext to intentionally stall talks. This intentional stalling was not conducing to success of talks nor to implementation of agreement. It was intentional stalling. We had spent 40 days to reach agreement and after agreement two more weeks had passed. It would not contribute to progress of talks if we now retrogressed. This was an obstruction to our entering upon discussion of item two. (He then made statement on higher level talks contained immediately following tel.)

15. I replied I was pleased to note arrangement apparently being made so that UK could undertake functions in his country as set forth in agreed announcement.

16. I had to make it clear I could not consider that agenda item one was finally disposed of until it had been made clear all Americans in his country who desire to return had been enabled to do so. We had issued agreed announcement which I expected would facilitate resolution this question. We each undertook obligations in that announcement. We each agreed third countries would have certain functions in each of our countries. Third countries could be of some assistance, but there were portions of announcement which could only be implemented by our own governments. I had fully, frankly and completely informed him immediately of action we had taken to implement announcement. I thought it entirely reasonable that we should expect from his side information regarding steps taken to implement announcement. In announcement each government had stated it would further adopt measures so that Chinese and Americans who desired to do so could expeditiously exercise their right to return. He had asked whether all Chinese in the US who desired to leave could immediately do so. My answer was, yes. There was no action my government had not taken which it could be expected to take in order to permit Chinese in the US to return. I had already informed him of the numbers who had left US for Far East. If any Chinese were still remaining in US today it was entirely at their own choice.

17. Although he had said he could not accept my statement that 19 Americans were still detained in his country and although he had accused me of again putting forward question of 19 I had done so and must continue to do so until they were enabled to return. Whatever reasons might be given, there certainly was no more effective measure which could be taken for detaining a person than keeping him in jail. He had said I stated I had no intension of interfering with his legal processes or sovereignty or of dictating to him what measures he should take, and that was correct. I referred only to that portion of agreed announcement which contained a statement by him on behalf of his government that his government had adopted and would further adopt measures so Americans could expeditiously return. I was not attempting to tell him how to implement the agreement. I was merely asking for information on how it was being implemented.

18. I continued that release of Americans in jail was something over which third power could have no control. It was something which only action by his government could resolve. I had asked him few, simple, straightforward questions on aspects of implementation on which I did not consider I had received satisfactory replies. I had asked for specific information whether each American in jail had been informed of terms agreed announcement. I understood there was general arrangement for giving news to people in jail by which they would normally have been informed. It certainly should be possible for his government to let us know and confirm whether this had been done with respect informing American prisoners of agreed announcement. I had also asked for information on arrangements for such persons to communicate with office UK Charge. It should certainly be possible for him to tell me whether these arrangements had been made, also whether arrangements had been made so that UK Charge could interview these persons. These were all matters which we considered very important in implementation of announcement.

19. I then said he had spoken of stalling. When we came here August 1, I had proposed arrangement which would immediately and quickly dispose of first item so that we could go on to second item. I proposed simply that his government take same action as my government: that is, any action necessary permit Americans leave. This would have been simple, straightforward, natural way solve this problem. His government did not see fit accept this proposal. I did not intend go back over that argument, but delay was due entirely his government’s unwillingness accept that reasonable, simple proposal. Of 29 Americans in jail August 1, who [all?] were still there.

20. Wang replied since we now have agreement, question is implementation of agreement. There was no question about fact that measures would be further adopted as provided in agreed announcement. He had made it very clear actions and measures his side had adopted to implement agreement, and they showed that his side was earnestly implementing agreement. This was a matter of common sense used in implementing agreement. He was not a machine like a gramophone to play the same record every time I asked. He wanted to point out clearly that there was no provision in the agreement that any particular individual would depart from China at a certain fixed year, month, day or hour. If we had been able to arrive at an agreement providing for a precise date and hour on which each individual would return, what would have been the use of an agreement of the kind we concluded? This agreement had concerned civilians and not the return of criminals or law offenders. He stated I had said that all Chinese who desired return could. However, how could they return in a matter of weeks? He again requested me for a complete list of names and addresses of his nationals so that his government could confirm whether those who desired to return could actually do so.

21. He said delay in past during first phase of talks was entirely due my insistence on return these criminals. My insistence and demands contained an element of infringement on his sovereignty. The implementation of the agreement on the return of civilians could never be made an obstacle to the discussion of item two. His side considered this argument was an excuse and a pretext which he interpreted as an attempt at intentional stalling. He could not see why we should again return to our repeated discussion of item one.

22. He said we had come here for talks as a result proposal initiated by our side. Furthermore his side had accepted an agenda which had been proposed by our side. He had come to talks to resolve questions and to make progress. He was not here to further discuss agreement concluded two weeks ago, and he could see no reason for our stalling these talks. He had put forward two topics for discussion under agenda item two. At last meeting I had given my opinion and now he had commented on my opinion. I had said I would discuss practical matters at issue between the two countries and he was prepared to do likewise.

23. I replied he had said something which I wanted to be sure I understood. Was it correct he considered terms of agreed announcement did not apply to persons in prison in his country?

24. Wang said he did not say that agreed announcement did not apply to persons in prison. Agreement concerned return of civilians rather than return of persons who had committed crimes. Cases of latter must necessarily be handled according to Chinese law. It was a matter of course for a sovereign state to deal with these cases, as it also conformed with practice in international law. Any demand that these persons did not come under Chinese law was tantamount to an unequal treaty known as extraterritoriality. A country which could be so humiliated had perished forever.

25. I remarked I simply wanted to say that I had asked what I thought are reasonable questions regarding implementation of agreed announcement. I was sorry I could not say replies I had received had been satisfactory. I had noted UK Charge now being able assume his functions. I hoped at next meeting I would have replies to questions I had raised today.

26. Wang asked if I had any comment regarding his proposals for topics under item two.

27. I said I had no more to say today.

28. Wang asked if I could state whether next time I would be able to comment on his proposals.

29. I replied I had nothing more to say than what I had said already.

30. Wang said he could not consider way these talks are being conducted as satisfactory. Did I mean to say US was not willing to discuss item two?

31. I stated I had not said that. I had made some remarks on subject at last meeting.

32. Wang asked whether then I agreed to enter into discussion item two at next meeting.

33. I asked if he would at next meeting give me answers to questions I had asked him today on implementation.

34. Wang said he had already replied to my questions. He had told me that UK had been formally notified by his government. These talks between the two countries had been initiated by the US. Communique issued by two governments had confirmed the two items for agenda. On August 1 we had agreed on these two items of agenda. At 14th meeting we had reached agreement on first item. Talks should immediately proceed to second item after agreement reached on first. At 15th meeting he had put forward two proposals to discuss under second item. At 16th meeting US side had made observations on one of his two proposals under second item. Today at 17th meeting I had not been willing discuss second item at all. It seemed somewhat farcical to him that such serious talks between our countries should be conducted this way. If we were to go on like this he would have to consider it intentional stalling and wasting of time on our part. If at next meeting US still not in position to discuss item two, his side would have to consider issuing a public unilateral statement to let public opinion pass on this matter.

35. I said I had nothing more to say and suggested we meet again September 28.

36. We agreed on statement for press identical with one issued following last meeting with addition word “continued” paragraph two.

Shillock

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–2355. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.