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

277. Telegram 837 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 8, 1955, 7 p.m.

837. From Johnson.

1. I opened 20th meeting today with a prepared statement saying I was anxious for our discussions to move ahead. I regretted as much as he did that at every meeting I had to devote time to discussion of implementation of agreed announcement. I had to remind him again that it was only his government’s failure to act promptly to implement agreed announcement which made this necessary.

2. In four weeks since September 10 his government had failed to release single one of 19 Americans whose cases, he assured me, were to be “expeditiously’’ reviewed. United Kingdom Charge had so far been entirely unable perform any of functions envisaged for him in agreed announcement. Neither had Wang been willing to assure me here whether Charge would in fact be enabled by Wang’s government perform these functions.

3. I said my government was profoundly dissatisfied with his government’s failure to implement agreed announcement. We could not but conclude that announcement had thus far been meaningless with respect to these 19 Americans. It was very disappointing that four weeks had passed without any improvement whatsoever in this unsatisfactory situation. I wanted assure him that my government would continue to be concerned so long as Americans in his country were not allowed expeditiously to exercise their right to return, as provided in agreed announcement, and would scrutinize most closely his government’s performance this regard.

4. I had brought up this matter of implementation of agreed announcement before any other subject this morning again to indicate how important it was for progress of our talks here. I wanted him to know that these questions on implementation must continue to be uppermost in my mind and that I could not devote my full attention to other matters before us so long as Americans were denied their right to return.

5. I pointed out that at our last meeting Wang had made some remarks with respect to my proposal that under our second agenda item we first discuss question of renunciation of force for achievement of national objectives. Said from his remarks I believed he might not have had clear idea of what I had in mind this regard. In accordance with what I had told him at last meeting, I was prepared today to amplify and more fully explain this proposal.

6. I then read full text statement renunciation of force (Deptels 789 and 805) and handed Wang copy.

7. Wang then read from long prepared statement. He said I had alleged his government had not acted promptly on implementation agreement and thus delayed our talks. He could not accept this allegation. Already five meetings had been held since agreement reached on return of civilians of both sides. At first meeting following agreement his side introduced two subjects for discussion in accordance with agreed agenda and our side had complained that it was premature discuss these before carrying out of agreed announcement. At two succeeding meetings I had not only failed present positive views regarding his suggestions but also failed put forward subjects I thought should be discussed. I had not put forward my subjects until September 28 but even then I had not given explanation of them. At meeting October 5 I had refused enter into substantive discussion on subjects put forward.

8. He said our side had in these five meetings also repeatedly raised questions which should have been raised by third powers and thus had prevented talks from making further progress. This I had done in spite of specific provisions regarding functions third powers in agreed announcement and in spite fact US had asked UK to assist in return of Americans in China to which his side had agreed. Nevertheless, in interest forestalling further hindrances, his side had suggested our questions on implementation agreement might be taken up by assistants. However, I had also turned down this reasonable suggestion. Now it was very clear and permitted of no distortion where responsibility for delay of talks lay.

9. He said that all allegations his government had not acted promptly on implementation agreement were without factual basis. Upon reaching agreement he had informed me of results reviews cases Americans who had violated laws. Chinese Government took appropriate measures in accordance with agreement and in line with Chinese legal procedures and had advanced release of 10 Americans who had since left country. With respect remaining Americans who had violated laws in China his side would adhere promise review individual cases in accordance Chinese legal procedure and report results to US through UK. But cases these Americans must be dealt with in accordance Chinese legal procedure. Any demand release them within specified period time or under some other cloak would be categorically rejected by his side and they would steadfastly refuse comply in any way with such demands which violated agreement.

10. He said, during period from beginning of consular talks to issuance agreement, his side had given concrete information on departure 27 Americans who had returned to US. Furthermore, since Ambassadorial talks began he had given me information on 33 Americans who “should or may” leave China, and bulk these had already left. These facts proved his side would make good whatever they said. As for Americans who had not yet departed, it was left to their own discretion when they would depart. If I had any further questions, I could communicate them to UK Charge. At outset these talks his side had made available to me list of all Americans in China, but I had failed make available to him information concerning all Chinese in US.

11. Wang said during contacts past year and in present talks my side had given him names 103 Chinese who had applied leave United States but were prevented from doing so by US Government. However, up to present 47 of these had not left United States and this showed my side had failed implement agreement. I had said 402 Chinese left between July 11 and October 3, but I had failed provide names so they had no means check up on these persons. His side was going to request GOI as third power entrusted under agreed announcement to make investigation this regard.

12. Wang said in spite his dissatisfaction on return Chinese he had not obstructed progress of talks for that reason. On other hand, I continued entangle talks with question implementation and he bound to ask if my side was unwilling discuss second item agenda.

13. Regarding his two subjects Wang said my side had not expressed specific opinion on question of embargo. American policy of embargo had been major factor in leading to tension between China and US and in preventing economic development and trade of many countries. He could not understand why I not able express opinion on this question.

14. Wang asked how I could consider his subject of preparations for higher level negotiations was anything but practical matter. It was certainly practical matter which should be settled. Arranging practical and physical channel for settlement and easing of tension between China and US in Taiwan area was certainly practical matter. I had said only after we had seen what progress we could make here could we then talk about what to do next. Did I mean to impose a prerequisite on holding of higher level negotiations?

15. He said that on question missing US military personnel he had repeatedly pointed out his side had accounted for all Americans in China including military personnel my side. No justification whatsoever and fabrication without basis for me to demand his side account for US military personnel missing in Korea. I must be aware reply this question already given in appropriate organ in Korea.

16. Wang said he bound point out after last meeting I had violated agreement on privacy these talks by discussing with newspaper men what our side had introduced as first item of agenda, namely missing personnel. This action would compel him consider making public statement on this question.

17. Wang then commented extemporaneously on my statement regarding renunciation of force. He said he had given specific opinion on this question when he put forward his two subjects for discussion and again in subsequent meetings. Since foundation his government its foreign policy had always been peaceful policy. It was well known his government together with other governments had initiated Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. They were resolutely opposed settlement disputes by force and always upheld principle peaceful negotiation for settlement international disputes. In same manner they upheld principle of negotiation for peaceful settlement of disputes between China and United States. Cooperation between these two countries would not only benefit peoples of two countries but also serve cause world peace. Chinese people were friendly to Americans and they did not want war with American people.

18. He said if renunciation of force was to be subject discussion it was clearly known Chinese never applied any force to American territory. China had never sent armed forces to Honolulu or San Francisco. On contrary Americans had sent armed forces to Taiwan which was Chinese territory.
I had said US as member of UN adhered to principles of Charter and I had also listed a number of other international treaties. China had always fully supported principles of UN Charter despite fact China still obstructed from being restored to her rightful place in UN. However, there was no provision in Charter of UN or in international law for one state to interfere in internal affairs of other states or to use force to occupy territory of other states.

19. He said there was a distinction between international disputes and civil conflicts. Taiwan was Chinese territory and liberation of Taiwan was an exercise of sovereign and territorial rights. All actions which involved forceful occupation of Taiwan and used force to interfere with liberation of Taiwan by Chinese people violated principles of UN and international law. Chinese people would continue oppose any such action. He concluded saying he would comment on remainder my statement later.

20. I said with respect to implementation agreed announcement I had today again set forth my government’s views and would not take time to repeat them. I simply wanted to say that matter could have been disposed of in few minutes if I could have received answers to few simple questions I had asked. To best my knowledge UK Charge in Peking had also received no answers to these questions.

21. I said he had asked whether or not I was willing to discuss subjects under agenda item two. The answer was certainly yes. I had given him at some length and several times my opinion on one of his subjects. I had indicated my willingness to discuss his other point as well. This morning I had given him a very carefully prepared and very carefully considered statement with respect our point on renunciation of force. I wanted to emphasize this was very important statement. It was made in most earnest desire that it would contribute to progress our discussions here. I wanted point out my statement had made no charges against his government, also it did not propose his government should say anything which my government was not prepared to say. It was put forward as constructive and earnest effort to deal with problems we were called upon to deal with here. I hoped his government would give thought to statement before our next meeting and hoped at that time I could have his very considered views on statement.

22. He had raised question of press statement. I assured him I did not give any information to press regarding our last meeting. It should be quite apparent from newspaper stories themselves that information they published was not accurate. Newspaper articles which I saw had said I presented and discussed in detail the question of missing military personnel. We both knew that was not correct. I could only assume that in light public statements and discussion this subject, which had taken place in United States even before these talks, that newspaper men assumed that was what we had discussed. I certainly gave them no information whatsoever.

23. Wang said I had stated UK Charge in Peking not able perform his functions and that he had not received replies to questions he had raised. This was not accurate. As he understood situation British Charge had not up to that time made formal approach to Chinese Government. If UK Charge formally contacted Chinese Government regarding UK functions assumed under agreed announcement, Wang’s government would certainly be available to him. Chinese Government willing consider any proposal which reasonable and served improve relations between China and the US and thus facilitated progress our talks.

24. I said I had no more to say and hoped at next meeting to have his government’s very considered views on statement I had made this morning. I suggested we meet again Friday, October 14.

25. Wang said he hoped I would be able to give concrete views concerning embargo question introduced by his side.

26. I replied our view on timing discussion of that question was contained in statement I made this morning.

27. Wang said he could not agree to any fixed order of discussion. His side would continue to comment on our subjects and hoped we would do likewise. He agreed date for next meeting.

28. I said point I had made on timing was not made in procedural sense but in substantive sense.

29. We agreed without discussion on press release identical last meeting.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–855. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.