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

267. Telegram 819 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 5, 1955, 10 p.m.

819. From Johnson.

1. At 19th meeting October 5, I asked Wang if he had some replies to questions I had asked him last meeting.

2. Wang read from long prepared statement. He said he believed both of us recognized our discussion agenda item two thus far had been unsatisfactory. It had been nearly a month since agreement on return of civilians from both sides concluded, but we were still spending time on details of implementation thus preventing us from proceeding to discussion agenda item two. At last meeting I had raised questions which went into details of implementation of agreement. Such questions might well be put to Chinese Government in accordance with terms of agreement by third state entrusted with functions. In our case it would be United Kingdom. Since both sides had entrusted respective third states perform functions, we should trust Embassy or office of Charge of third states to handle detailed questions on implementation of agreement instead of interfering with our talks here.

3. Wang said he could not agree with way questions on implementation being used by me to prevent discussion substance of item two. He had suggested at last meeting that our assistants get together to discuss details of implementation and consider any reasonable suggestions I might wish make. I had turned down proposal, however, so under circumstances he thought questions on implementation should be addressed to Chinese Government through UK Charge.

4. He said I had also put forward two subjects under agenda item two and had raised question of order of subjects. He had indicated he could not agree to removal any of his subjects nor to any fixed order for discussion. There was no necessity for carrying on prolonged argument on such procedural questions. Under agenda item two “other practical matters” we had agreed each side could raise any question it thought should be discussed so that there would be free expression of opinions. Therefore, it was not necessary limit subjects for discussion nor to fix order. Both sides could express opinions on all subjects raised and proceed take action first on points on which we able reach accord. Thus we would keep from falling into controversy over procedural matters and not hinder talks from making further progress.

5. He said on September 14 he had put forward two subjects for discussion under agenda item two: “question of embargo” and “preparations for Sino-American negotiations at a higher level.” He had explained what he meant by two subjects. He could not agree that higher level meeting was not a “practical matter.” I had said at last meeting his suggestion appeared to imply a decision even before discussion at this level that it impossible for us settle practical matters in these talks. His suggestions, on contrary, did not contain this implication at all. His proposal that each side could raise any subject it wished discuss should have removed any misunderstanding this score. Opinion his side it more practical to negotiate at a higher level such major questions as easing and eliminating tension between China and US in Taiwan area. It was definitely practical matter and fit subject for these talks to arrange such practical and feasible channels as might be needed to settle issues of outstanding importance between China and US.

6. Wang continued by saying I had maintained a higher level meeting could only be held after these talks. His side had also envisaged that the higher level meeting should come after these talks were completed. That was no reason we should not arrange for convening higher level conference here. If we fail to make arrangement here it would make convening higher level conference more difficult.

7. He said he also wanted to know my opinion on question of embargo. I had stated last meeting I had two subjects: accounting for US personnel and renunciation of use of force. However, I had not given any explanation of these two subjects. He found it hard to understand why subject “so-called accounting” had been raised. At outset of talks on agenda item one he had given list 87 Americans which represented all Americans in China. It included all Americans both civilian and military. If by raising subject I had intended imply there were still more Americans in China this was sheer fabrication which his side not able accept. Up to now our side had not submitted to his side list of all Chinese in US. If there was to be any accounting at all it was up to our side give him complete list Chinese.

8. Wang said with respect to question renunciation of force, we should distinguish between civil war (internal conflicts) and international disputes. Civil conflicts clearly would fall outside terms of reference these talks. But even with respect to civil conflicts China had striven for peaceful solutions when circumstances permitted. Fact was that Chiang clique under wings of foreign forces had refused peaceful settlement and carried on harassing activities. Wang’s side could not stand by and do nothing.

9. He said that with respect to international disputes, they had always upheld their settlement by negotiation. China in association with other countries had initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. They had consistently supported the provisions of Charter of United Nations concerning settlement of disputes by peaceful means and calling for no recourse to force. During Asian African conference in Bandung China had explicitly stated its position this regard and joined with others in issuing statements. With respect Sino-American relations Chou En-lai had repeatedly and explicitly stated that there was no war between China and United States, that Chinese people did not want to fight with America, and we should sit down and negotiate. Secretary of State Dulles had also said that no fighting going on in Taiwan area between Chinese and Americans. Therefore, there was no question of arranging cease-fire between China and America.

10. He said if we were to discuss renunciation of force that it was precisely US which was using force to achieve national objectives. Taiwan was Chinese territory. It was restored to China after World War II. And yet US had encroached upon it, and occupied it and would use force to prevent liberation of Taiwan and islands off coast China. If we discussed question then we would have to discuss withdrawal all US forces from Taiwan and islands. They had recognized that it would be very difficult to settle this question in these talks so they did not raise it. However, if we wished to discuss it here and I had full authority to discuss and settle this problem he was ready to discuss it with me.

11. He concluded saying that in previous meeting I had said I had faith and hope that two of us would make progress on practical matters and would strive to do so. He warmly welcomed this statement and assured me he would strive to best his ability realize that hope. Meanwhile, he wanted point out in all frankness that if we were to realize hope of both of us we would have to strive harder than before, and both should prove desire we had expressed by our actual deeds.

12. In reply I said he had made a long statement and I wanted to carefully study and consider it. But first I wanted to deal with question of implementation agreed announcement. He had expressed desire not to spend too much time on details and I certainly agree as I had told him at last meeting. Furthermore, I did not see why it should be necessary for us to do so. He had suggested that these be dealt with through UK Charge or Indian Embassy. I wanted point out agreed announcement provided for certain actions to be taken by our respective governments and provided for other functions to be performed by other countries. Those matters which according to agreed announcement concerned actions by our governments were an intergovernmental matter between us. Words of agreed announcement resolved nothing, but only implementation of these words would resolve problem with which we were concerned under agenda item one. Some of questions I had raised had also been raised by UK Charge in Peking but satisfactory replies had not been received by him.

13. In addition to question of 19 Americans in jail, I had raised three simple questions at several meetings. In accordance with his suggestion I had rephrased these questions in the form of suggestions which he had said his government would be willing to consider. These three suggestions were simply: (1) I asked whether or not he could confirm that Americans in jail had been given text of agreed announcement in language they could understand. We had received no information from UK Charge confirming this done. It seemed very simple matter and he could simply answer with yes which would dispose of this question. (2) I asked whether or not those persons in jail could freely communicate with or otherwise have access to UK Charge in accordance with terms agreed announcement. Again very simple affirmative answer could dispose of this question here. (3) I asked whether or not UK Charge would be permitted interview persons who desired return if under agreed announcement US wanted facts in any such case investigated. Again simple affirmative answer would dispose this question here.

14. I considered these matters of implementation of announcement ones which concerned both our governments. These questions had also been raised by UK Charge and replies satisfactory to US had not been received through him. I found it difficult understand why I could not have answers to these simple questions. Difficult understand why his government appeared be moving so slowly in implementing agreed announcement and thus delaying our talks here. Best way make progress would be for his government implement announcement and for him frankly inform me here in this regard. At last meeting he had assured me that his government would faithfully carry out agreed announcement. He told me that cases of remaining 19 Americans were being reviewed individually and that British Charge would be notified of results of these reviews. Yet, up to present time, I did not know of a single such case which has been reported to British Charge, despite fact a month had passed since issuance of agreed announcement. I found difficult see how this was “faithful implementation” of the announcement. Apparent failure his government, up to the present, to give benefit of agreed announcement to imprisoned Americans made it meaningless as far as Americans in his country were concerned.

15. I said in view of his government’s continued delay in permitting any of 19 Americans to return, I was becoming more concerned over a statement which he made at our 17th meeting on September 23. He had said that agreed announcement concerned civilians, and not those he termed criminals or persons who had violated laws. He implied that persons in jail were not “civilians” and therefore not covered by provisions of agreed announcement. He did not mention nor even hint at such an interpretation of agreed announcement during course of our discussions prior to September 10 and I wanted to make it clear that I could not accept any such construction of announcement. I asked him to confirm to me that agreed announcement applied to all American civilians whether or not they were in his jails.

16. I said that at our last meeting also he had referred to my proposal, made during course of our discussions, that he specify a definite period of time within which all Americans in his country would be allowed to leave. As he had pointed out, he refused to specify any length of time. I had expressed to him a number of times my government’s dissatisfaction with his government’s refusal to accede to this reasonable proposal. Nevertheless, in interest of advancing these talks and on basis of his assurances that imprisoned Americans would be released expeditiously, my government did consent to issuance of the agreed announcement, even in absence of a specific time limit for release of Americans. His remarks at last meeting made it appear he interpreted my government’s concession in not insisting on a definite time limit as constituting agreement to indefinite delay by his government in releasing Americans. I emphatically rejected any such interpretation and stated clearly and unequivocally that my government considered that agreed announcement provided for expeditious departure from his country of all Americans who desired to return to United States, including those Americans still imprisoned.

17. I said he had also repeated several times at our last meeting that only improved relations between our two countries could enable his government to take “more lenient” attitude toward Americans in prison. It was difficult for us not to interpret this as an intent by his government to disregard explicit terms of our announcement and to hold these human beings as hostages for political advantage.

18. I said my government had issued agreed announcement in good faith, promptly and energetically began to implement it and fully expected that his government would do same. My government attached no political conditions to its carrying out of terms announcement and does not intend to do so. Chinese were permitted to leave United States freely even before issuance of agreed announcement and since that time have continued to depart freely. From July 11 to October 3, 402 Chinese left United States for Far East.

19. I said he had accused my government of intentionally stalling in order not to begin discussion of subjects introduced under agenda item two. I did not see any basis for such an accusation. My government acted with great promptness to implement agreed announcement and thus cleared way for promptly going on to item two. It was only failure of his government to act with equal promptness which had resulted in slowing progress of talks. If stalling was involved, it should be obvious that that was where fault lay.

20. I said he had also implied that if his government were to release all Americans promptly, this would be submitting to pressure. I did not see how carrying out promptly an obligation which a government had freely and publicly accepted could be regarded as submitting to pressure. My government certainly did not consider it was submitting to pressure in setting up arrangements for India to assist departure of Chinese from the US and taking other action it had taken with respect to Chinese in the US. Why should it be considered any more submission to pressure for his government to do what it publicly declared in our agreed announcement it was going to do?

21. I said I would comment later on some other points raised in remainder his statement.

22. Wang replied he considered all remarks I had just made belonged in field agenda item one which we had already covered in our discussion and to which his side had already replied. Regarding implementation agreement he had repeatedly said his side would carry out agreement faithfully. However he would not allow any distorted interpretation of agreement question return of Americans in prison had to be dealt with according Chinese law. His side would continue review cases these people but action on part his government could only be carried out in light of conditions which he had told me. That is their cases would be reviewed by taking into account degree of their offenses, their conduct, and improvement relations between two countries in light of agreement we had reached. Only under such circumstances would it be possible his government adopt measures more lenient than present very lenient measures being taken. He could not agree to changing legal procedures of China and conditions he had informed me of and demand that Chinese Government do certain things unconditionally.

23. Wang said with respect question details implementation agreement he had suggested assistants both sides hold meetings at which our side could put forward any reasonable suggestion it wished. As he had said in statement this morning these questions might also be raised by UK Charge with his government. In his view if we continued entangle talks in such details it would not contribute to progress in our talks. Fault for stalling talks which prevented a full exchange of views on agenda item two was not theirs and they were not satisfied with state of things.

24. I said I was not satisfied either. I had asked him again in this meeting questions which I had asked in previous meetings. Instead of discussing where these questions should be discussed, referring them to third country or referring them to our assistants, these questions could be disposed of in a few minutes between us. He had spoken of my distorting the interpretation of announcement. If I had distorted it in any way that was what I wanted to know. I had asked him to confirm to me whether his government interpreted announcement to apply to all civilians whether or not they were in prison. This was vital matter between our two governments and not one which could be dealt with by assistants or third powers. Other three questions I had asked him had also been raised by UK Charge in Peiping and he had not received any satisfactory replies to them. Certainly Wang could simply say yes, Americans in prison had been given text agreed announcement in language which they understood. Certainly he could say yes those Americans have been given freedom communicate with UK Charge. Certainly he could say yes UK Charge would be permitted interview these persons who desired return if my government wanted facts in their cases to be investigated. I did not see why we spent so much time on this matter either but I did not see why direct replies should be avoided. I never suggested that action his government took to implement announcement should disregard Chinese legal processes and it was assumed that his government had taken this into consideration when he agreed announcement. Again I wished to say I had made no demands. I was merely asking how announcement was being implemented.

25. Wang said he had already answered some of questions I had raised previously and this was not place for discussing other questions. If we continued to put forward all questions dealt with in our meetings in past he would have to say these questions were being used to stall progress of meetings. If we discuss questions which should not belong within field of discussion in this meeting then their discussion for even one minute was a waste of time. He could not understand why we repeat work which could be done by the third states after we had entrusted these third states in accordance with agreed announcement. If we had any reasonable suggestions these could be raised in a meeting of assistants instead of continuing discussion here and thus preventing progress. No necessity discuss these questions at this meeting because if I felt I had reasonable suggestions to make we might as well arrange special meeting of assistants to consider any reasonable suggestions.

26. Wang said since 15th meeting we had held four sessions and discussion agenda item two was still in beginning stage so easy see why he was dissatisfied with progress of talks. He hoped at meeting of Ambassadors when we had limited time at our disposal we would not bring up over and over again those questions we had dealt with in past. If we went on this way it would prevent discussion of major issues we came here to discuss. Points I have raised had been dealt with by his side many times. Remaining Americans who had violated laws were only handful and they would be dealt with in light of agreement reached, in accordance with Chinese legal procedures, and considering the seriousness of their crimes and their conduct. Individual reviews of their cases would be made and when completed his side would inform UK which was third country entrusted by our side. It not necessary for us to discuss at this meeting questions of this nature.

27. I asked if it was correct that his government did consider terms of agreed announcement applied to all American civilians including prisoners.

28. Wang said he had already replied to this question and he could not make any interpretation beyond his statement.

29. I said it was very simple question but I had difficulty interpreting his reply. All I had asked for was clarification.

30. Wang asked if I was not clear about answers he had given me.

31. I said no, I was not.

32. Wang read again from prepared text which he said was only reply he could give because it was in conformity with agreed announcement.

33. I asked whether phrase “in light of agreement” could be translated as “in accordance with agreement.” At that point there was some discussion between interpreters during which it appeared “in light of” should from beginning have been translated “in accordance with.”

34. I said I had no intention of belaboring point but he had said he had also answered my other questions. If he had done so in previous meetings I may have missed his answers. I asked if he felt he had answered my other questions.

35. Wang replied he had answered some of them.

36. I said I could not recall when.

37. Wang said I might refer to record of meetings.

38. I said I had done so and I could not find his answers. I had no intention of belaboring point, but I wanted to know if each American had received text of agreed announcement in English.

39. Wang said this question had been answered in past.

40. Was answer “yes”?

41. He said, “yes, of course.” It was provided that agreed announcement be given wide publicity.

42. I said may be some did not see announcement and there was special responsibility on part his government to see that those in prison had been given copies of announcement. I simply wanted to know if that had been done.

43. Wang said he had told me that agreed announcement provided for wide publicity which meant that everyone should know about it. He had told me his side was faithfully carrying out agreement. This question was one of those which arose out of implementation of agreement. Didn’t I trust them to faithfully implement agreement?

44. I said I was not raising question of trust and accepted his statement. I naturally had a question because some of those Americans released from prison had not heard of agreed announcement. I merely wanted him to assure me that the appropriate authorities in his country had made sure the text of agreed announcement was given to prisoners. I was willing accept his assurances this had been done.

45. Wang said his side would implement fully anything required of them by agreed announcement. He did not believe information on which I had based my statement was accurate.

46. I replied I had merely passed on to him information which those who had been released had given to us. I hoped he would assure himself that others had been informed. I hoped I could accept his statement regarding implementation of agreed announcement as indicating persons in jail would have freedom to communicate with UK Charge and that he would be permitted to interview them. UK Charge had received no communication from any of individuals concerned although almost one month had now passed since agreed announcement issued. This was difficult for us to understand.

47. Following long pause Wang said he had nothing to say in this regard. He asked if I had anything to say on points he had raised.

48. I asked if he were unable to give me an answer to these two questions. I did not want to discuss them at length.

49. Wang said he did not consider it necessary to answer these questions here. As he had suggested, they could be handled in a meeting of assistants or through third powers.

50. I said these questions had already been raised by UK Charge and no replies received. I hoped he could assure me that replies would be received by UK Charge promptly. If he received replies it would not be necessary raise questions here.

51. Wang said he had nothing to say.

52. I said this was very disappointing to me. Regarding remainder of his statement I wished to study it carefully because it was long and I would reply in detail at next meeting. I would hope at next meeting question implementation would be satisfactorily resolved so not necessary to spend time on that.

53. I said I had made suggestion last meeting regarding subjects we might discuss and order in which we might discuss them. It seemed me it would contribute to orderly progress our discussion if we had some understanding regarding order we would discuss questions. Regarding item on accounting for US personnel I had in mind question of military personnel still missing from Korean hostilities concerning whom my government had reason believe authorities in his country might have some information. However I considered problem of renunciation of force as most important and most fundamental subject with which we had to deal. Therefore, I considered we should discuss that first and we would be prepared at next meeting to go into that subject.

54. I said I welcomed his statement that he shared my hope we could make progress in dealing with some of these problems here. I believed we could. It seemed to me, only after we saw what progress we were able to make here, that question of what would happen after these meetings would arise. I had given my thoughts regarding discussion of meeting at higher level and what he had said in that regard did not change my view previously expressed that this was procedural matter. I honestly did not see how question of where or in what forum we discussed these issues between us was an issue in itself. These were two different matters. First was practical questions between two countries. Entirely apart from these was where they should be discussed and by whom. My government had agreed to our discussing these practical questions here. I could not see how proposal of another place to discuss these questions was in itself a practical matter, and nothing he had said had served to change my mind on this. I desired to make a careful reply to rest of his statement at next meeting.

55. Wang said by item “accounting for personnel” had I in mind personnel in Korea conflict?

56. I said American personnel.

57. Wang said he thought there was no reason for raising this question which had already become famous because of discussions regarding it at Kaesong and Panmunjom. He felt it regrettable that questions of Korean War which had already been discussed were being put forward at this meeting. If there was to be any talk about accounting for personnel it was for United States to account for personnel it detained in Korean War. If I wanted to raise this question he would also reserve right raise similar question of this nature.

58. Wang said he could not accept our contention that discussion preparations for higher level meeting was merely procedural matter. He had in mind that issues outstanding importance between China and US would be more practically discussed between two governments at higher level. This did not mean that higher level conference would replace our talks, but simply that there were number of questions which could be more appropriately discussed in certain forums at certain places. He said an illustration was fact that before our talks started here, contacts were made between our consular representatives. The American side had proposed these contacts be raised to Ambassadorial level because it was found that there were some questions which could not be settled by consular representatives and which could be resolved in a conference at Ambassadorial level. His side considered there were still other questions which could be more practically resolved in higher level conference. If I had full authority to resolve important and outstanding questions arising in Taiwan area, then he was ready discuss these questions with me. At next meeting when I made more detailed reply he would comment further.

59. I said I had nothing more.

60. Wang proposed we meet again October 8 and I agreed.

61. I said I would like to issue the same press statement we had made after last meeting.

62. Wang said he had indicated he would not agree to issue any more statements similar to one after last meeting. He suggested a statement saying we continued discussion on second item of agenda and omitting any reference to agenda item one. He added this form was exactly similar to press releases during discussion agenda item one and suggested we might use it for entire period of discussion agenda item two.

63. I said I did not want to go back over our substantive discussion, this release was not entirely factual because we had also discussed implementation of agreed announcement.

64. Wang said implementation of agreed announcement was supplementary question and not main issue. Furthermore implementation was not listed on agenda, therefore, no justification for including statement on implementation item one.

65. I said I disagreed because I considered implementation agreed announcement as major item and whether or not he agreed in this position, it was one I had taken at meeting. I was unable agree with his suggestion and if he was unable accept mine may be best follow his suggestion last meeting we say nothing about subjects discussed.

66. He agreed to release: “The Ambassadors of the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China held their 19th meeting today. The next meeting will be held at 10 am Saturday, October 8.”

Gowen

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