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

263. Telegram 811 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 5, 1955, 4 p.m.

811. From Johnson.

1. Two and one-half hour meeting this morning. At opening I referred to questions and/or suggestions on implementation I had raised last meeting and hoped Wang had replies this morning. He launched into long prepared statement terming discussion of item two “thus far unsatisfactory”, were spending time on “details” concerning agreed announcement and I was raising questions in this regard to “prevent discussion substance item two”. Renewed suggestions be discussed by assistants or through UK Charge Peking.

2. Then referring to my suggestion on subjects we discuss under item two stated “each side may raise subjects it considers should be discussed and not necessary to limit subjects or to fix their order”. There is no necessity carry on any prolonged argument on subjects to be discussed, “will not agree removal any subjects”, then went on with long justification for discussion higher level meeting largely repeating previous line. He then referred my two subjects stating he had already given me list all Americans in China including military personnel, if by raising subject I intended imply more Americans in China “this was sheer fabrication”, we have not given them list of Chinese in US, if there is to be any accounting of personnel up to us to do accounting.

3. Then turned to renunciation of force, should distinguish between civil conflicts which outside scope of these talks and international disputes. “Even in civil conflicts China had striven for peaceful solutions when circumstances permit.” “Chiang clique under wings of foreign forces has refused peaceful settlement and carries on harassing activities;” China has consistently upheld peaceful settlement international disputes, consistently supported principles UN Charter on peaceful settlement international disputes, references to Bandung, Five Principles, etc. “Chinese do not want to fight with US” and Dulles said no fighting in Taiwan area between Americans and Chinese. Therefore no question cease-fire between China and US. US is one using force achieve national objectives, Taiwan is Chinese territory, was restored to China World War II and yet US encroaches on and occupies and has said it will use force prevent liberation. PRC wishes discuss withdrawal all US forces from Taiwan and coastal islands. If I fully empowered discuss and settle this question he ready to do likewise. In closing referred my statement previous meeting I had faith and hope and said he shared but “we would have to strive harder and prove our desires by deeds”.

4. I said I first wanted to deal with implementation. I did not want to spend time on details, did not see why it was necessary. All that was required were simple answers to my simple questions, could be disposed of in few minutes. In reply his suggestion on UK taking up questions Peiping, pointed out agreed announcement had two aspects: one, actions to be taken by our governments which were intergovernmental matters between us, and two, functions third powers. Words of agreed announcement resolved nothing, only implementation resolved questions. Some of questions I had raised also taken up by UK in Peiping but no satisfactory replies. Repeated in full three questions on whether Americans in jail informed of text announcement, their access to UK Charge, and authority UK Charge interview them. Said simple affirmative answers would immediately dispose of these questions here. Difficult understand why he couldn’t give me simple answers, pointing out his failure to do so was what was delaying talks. Then made detailed statement pointing out none of remaining 19 yet released, could not consider this faithful implementation of announcement, PRC failure give benefit agreed announcement 10 imprisoned Americans makes it meaningless as far as Americans in PRC desiring return are concerned. In view of continued delay becoming more concerned over his statement September 23 meeting implying persons in jail not covered by provisions agreed announcement, could not accept any such construction and asked for confirmation all American civilians whether or not in jail covered by announcement. Could not agree to his implied interpretation our not insisting on definite time limit for release constituted agreement to indefinite delay in release. Must insist implementation agreed announcement provisions tor expeditious departure all Americans who desire to return including those still imprisoned. His continued reference to improved relations as factor in release could not but be interpreted as intent disregard explicit terms of announcement and “to hold these human beings as hostages for political advantage”. My government had promptly implemented announcement and had not and would not attach political conditions to carrying it out. Chinese have been and still were free to leave. Failure his government match our promptness in implementation was what was slowing progress talks. Referring his previous statements on pressure, did not see why it was submission to pressure for PRC “to do what it publicly declared in our agreed announcement it was going to do”.

5. He objected all my remarks as falling into item one and again raising matters which already discussed and settled. PRC would “faithfully carry out agreement but would not allow any distorted interpretation” of announcement. Will continue review cases but action must be accordance Chinese law, cases will be reviewed “in light of the agreement, degree of the offense, conduct and improvement of relations.” There was then much give and take until he clarified and corrected interpretation of previous statement by saying cases Americans being reviewed “accordance” agreed announcement and, in light of discussion, I interpret as being satisfactory statement that all Americans including those in prison included within announcement. I also pressed him hard on other three questions and although his answer vague and unsatisfactory with respect to specific assurance each American in prison had been informed of announcement, reiterated previous assurances wide publicity included measures to assure every American informed. In spite continual pressure he flatly refused answer other two questions saying this not the place for discussion. After long and unsuccessful prodding I expressed hope he would assure me UK Charge would promptly be given replies. He kept repeating he had nothing more to say.

6. I then referred to remainder his statement and said I wished to study and give detailed reply later. However I pointed out my suggestion on order of discussion of subjects was designed to contribute to orderly progress. I defined what I meant by US personnel by stating this concerned American military personnel still missing from Korean hostilities concerning whom there was reason to believe his authorities had information. Then said considered renunciation of force most important, therefore probably should be discussed first, and I would be prepared say more on subject next meeting. Then repeated arguments against higher level meeting stating nothing he had said this morning had changed my mind.

7. He replied stating question US military personnel had been fully covered at Panmunjom, no reason for raising it here, and if we did so he reserved right raise question of US accounting for personnel detained in Korean War. Repeated his arguments on higher level meeting as well as statement that if I had full authority deal with “important and outstanding questions arising in the Taiwan area” he was ready to discuss.

8. I agreed his proposal next meeting Saturday, October 8. There was then considerable argument on press communique, he insisting communique be confined to statement we had continued discuss agenda item two, and I insisting on previous communique. We finally agreed on simply stating we had met and give time next meeting.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–555. Confidential; Niact; Limited Distribution.