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

304. Telegram 922 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 20, 1955, 9 p.m.

922. From Johnson.

1. 22nd meeting today lasted two hours and twenty minutes. I opened with prepared statement as follows:

A. Mr. Ambassador, I first wish to discuss with you this morning question of implementation of announcement with regard to return of civilians which we issued on September tenth. This Saturday six weeks will have passed since that announcement was issued. In our last few meetings I have expressed to you increasing concern over delay by your government in implementing that announcement. At our last meeting I stated that it should be evident that my government was bound to take increasingly serious view of your government’s failure to implement announcement with respect to 19 Americans in jail if this failure should be further protracted. However, I have not taken up valuable time at these meetings to discuss this matter in detail.

B. I have done this in deference to your wish that we should proceed to discussion of matters under agenda item 2 as rapidly as possible. This is my desire too, but you must understand that in order for discussion of these complex subjects to proceed with some hope of success, there must be present an atmosphere of mutual confidence and assurance that agreements reached will be carried out.

C. This atmosphere of mutual confidence is rapidly and seriously being jeopardized by your government’s failure to implement agreed announcement with respect to remaining imprisoned Americans, as well as by continued inability of UK Charge in Peking to carry out functions envisaged in announcement. When agreed announcement was released, people of United States and world promptly took it to mean simply what it said. They believed that Americans in your country who wanted to return would be permitted expeditiously to exercise their right to do so, this encouraged American people and my government and me to believe that we could promptly go on to fruitful discussion of other matters at issue between our two countries. We hoped and expected that in this atmosphere it would be possible to move ahead on these other important and difficult matters.

D. I must in interest of our talks frankly tell you that favorable atmosphere created by issuance of the announcement is being rapidly dissipated. Up to now no action whatever has been taken to permit return of remaining 19 Americans. Furthermore, you told me that your government would promptly consider suggestions with regard details of implementation submitted by British Charge in Peking. Although more than five weeks have now passed since I first raised these questions here with you and several weeks have passed since British Charge raised these same questions with your government, he still has not even received reply. Nor has any imprisoned American been permitted by your government even to communicate with him. This is causing serious doubt in my country concerning willingness of your government faithfully and promptly to carry out this, our first common public act. Feeling is gaining ground that cases of these Americans are not being handled in light of agreed announcement, but rather that these individuals are being held as hostages for political purposes. I would not be honest if I did not tell you that continuation of this situation cannot fail to have an unfavorabe effect on other aspects of these talk.

E. If this is to be result of our issuing an agreed announcement, it would have, perhaps, been better if it had never been issued. However, I am very reluctant to come to this conclusion. I want to believe that your government will take action to complete carrying out of its commitment and thereby restore an atmosphere in which it will be possible to make further progress in these talks.

F. Before turning to any other matters this morning, I would like to hear what you have to say with regard to this situation.

2. Wang replied that he regarded my again raising question of implementation regrettable. He could not accept my statement that his government had neglected implementation of agreed announcement. There were still Chinese nationals in US who desire to return but have not been able to do so. His government had not received lists of names even of those individuals I had informed him had departed US. Wang said that this was not satisfactory.

3. He continued by stating that 66 American nationals remain in China, including 47 “civilians”. Any of these “civilians” who desire to return to US may do so in accordance with agreement. As to another 19 who have “committed offenses”, Wang said that he had previously indicated that his government is willing to review case of each of these people in accordance with Chinese law.

4. Wang said that “alleged doubt” in US concerning willingness of his government to carry out agreement is not justified, and that he opposed strongly “alleged statement” that remaining 19 are held as hostages. He termed this “deliberate distortion of facts”.

5. He said that each side had invited third country and that all matters concerning implementation should be referred to these countries. It is unnecessary further to bring up matter in these talks. If matter is further raised in these talks, he cannot but take it as questioning their good faith in implementation of agreed announcement.

6. Wang stated that his side was not raising question of US implementation in spite of its dissatisfaction on return of Chinese nationals in US. He stated he would not raise question of good faith of US in carrying out agreement.

7. I replied that advantage of our meeting was informal atmosphere without publicity that enabled us to talk frankly with each other. I stated that I hoped we would be able to continue to do so. I told him that what I had said this morning was motivated by earnest desire to explain frankly situation in my country in regard to talks. I told him that if he is dissatisfied with progress of returning Chinese nationals from US he should tell me so frankly.

8. I stated that to best of my knowledge no Chinese national who wants to return is being prevented from returning by any action by my government. I said that any Chinese national who feels he is being hindered is free to communicate with Indian Embassy, and that we had previously stated that we would accept representations from Indan Embassy on behalf of any such nationals. I said that I knew of no case thus far in which such representations had been received and that we would act promptly should any such case arise.

9. I said that case of 19 Americans is entirely different. I said that only action by Wang’s government can permit them to leave. Whatever he may feel concerning justice or injustice of my statements regarding public opinion in US, it is fact that has to be considered. I am sure his government follows US press and knows statements I made are not based on figment my imagination.

10. I said that press releases by official agencies of his government have done much to feed feeling that these Americans being held as hostages. These press releases and statements continued to speak of improvement in relatons as factor in release of these Americans.

11. I said that American press and public are putting same interpretation on these statements that I had told him in earlier meetings I could not but place on similar statements he had made. I said that I am very disturbed about this situation.

12. I told him that I earnestly hoped this situation can be corrected and that atmosphere created by agreed announcement can be restored. I said I greatly feared consequences of continuation of present situation, and that I was saying this not to be provocative or to make threats, but simply in order to share frankly with him trend of opinion in my country with its inevitable consequences on the talks.

13. Wang replied that he shared my view that we should speak frankly in these talks. However, frank exchanges should facilitate rather than hinder progress of talks. Insofar as public opinion is concerned, there is also public opinion in his country. In his country “public opinion is truly representative of opinion of Chinese people”, and this fact could not be distorted in any way.

14. He said that our positions in these discussions must be based on genuine facts. If our deliberations were based on inaccurate speculations, we could not possibly come to correct conclusions. In same manner he hoped that there would be conciliatory attitude in public opinion. This required efforts on both sides.

15. I replied that I agreed that discussion should be based on facts, and that I was trying to explain fact regarding situation in my country. I said I hoped he and his government would earnestly consider what I had said because it was said to facilitate talks.

16. I said I wished to stress the fact that people in my country expected agreed announcement to lead to expeditious return of detained Americans and that adverse reaction of disappointment was increasing with time. I said that as personal touch I had letter from lady in my own home town, Mrs. Houle, mother of Father Houle. I read excerpts from letter, expressing Mrs. Houle’s expectation at time of announcement her son would promptly return and increasing disappointment at no word on his return.

17. I concluded that it was hard for me to answer letters like that, but that I would not pursue subject further this morning.

18. Wang replied that there are people who express same feelings in letters to him and that there have been various views concerning the advance release of Americans who have committed offenses. He said that questions have been raised why such people who have been unfriendly to China and carried out acts against it should be released early. He said he did not propose to deal further with this point.

19. I next presented prepared statement on renunciation of force as follows:

A. Mr. Ambassador I have very carefully studied remarks which you made at our last meeting concerning proposal of my government that each of us should renounce use of force to achieve our policies when they conflict and specifically that both sides declare that they would not resort to use of force in Taiwan area except defensively.

B. During your discussion at our last meeting you introduced several subjects, in particular that of status of Taiwan and presence of United States forces in that area. These are subjects upon whch our respective governments hold different views. I have carefully avoided attempting to force on you views of my government with regard to these complex matters. Although my government is entirely convinced of rightness and justness of its position with regard to these matters, it is not now asking your government to accept our views. My government full well recognizes that its views are different from those of your government and that each of our governments has policies which are in certain respects incompatible with each other.

C. On other hand I have noted your demand that my government should withdraw its forces from Taiwan area. In effect you are demanding that United States should change its policy and that my government should abandon those whom it has solemnly pledged to defend from attack. You state that your government will, if circumstances permit, seek what you term the liberation of Taiwan by peaceful means. I cannot but read into your statement the clear implication that if you are not able by peaceful means to achieve your national objectives with respect to Taiwan area, you will resort to force. What you seem in effect to be saying is that you will use peaceful means as long as your national objectives can thereby be achieved but that if they cannot be achieved by such means, you threaten to use force. Therefore, it seems to me that what you in effect have said is that if United States does not accede to your government’s demand that my government change its policies, your government threatens use of armed force.

D. Just so that we may be entirely clear, I want to say very frankly and very bluntly that United States does not intend to yield to threat of force.

E. My government does not consider that force is admissible means of settling differneces between us. My government is not demanding that your government alter its views or its objectives. Proposal which I have made is only that both sides declare their willingness to renounce force to implement these policies. Then and only then can these differences between us be freely and hopefully discussed. They cannot be usefully discussed under present conditions in which one party is threatening use of force if its views do not fully prevail.

F. I have sought to determine aspects of this principle on which we agree and hope that whatever common ground we do have may be extended and provide a sufficient base for making declarations which I have suggested. Solemn duty which both of us have toward our respective governments and peoples is to attempt to widen area of whatever agreement exists between us and to narrow and eventually eliminate areas of disagreement. You have stated that your government is in agreement with my government regarding principles of United Nations Charter with respect to use of force. However, if I understand your remarks correctly, your government is not willing to apply those principles to situation in Taiwan area. As I pointed out in my statement at our 20th meeting, there are many countries in world today which are abnormally divided. In each of these cases resort to force by one side or other cannot but result in war. A determination that such situations should not be permitted to bring about war has been voiced by responsible governments. In such an atmosphere there can be hope that equitable, just and peaceful solutions can, with patience, be found. Such solutions are impossible in atmosphere of overwhelming threat of one side to resort to force if its views do not prevail. Only when threat of force is removed can there be hope of coming to constructive conclusions.

G. I fail to see why or upon what moral or legal basis your government considers that situation in Taiwan area differs from these other situations. I fail to see why your government considers that it should be entitled to disregard accepted standards of international conduct with regard to this particular situation.

H. I again most earnestly express hope that your government will be able to agree with mine upon this simple but fundamental principle so that other matters can be discussed with a better hope of reaching constructive conclusions.

20. Wang replied with prepared statement. He said that he had previously pointed out that principle of non-recourse to force must not be abused with respect to China’s exercise of its sovereign rights to its own territory of Taiwan. He said that Chinese Government has already stated that “circumstances permitting it will strive to liberate Taiwan by peaceful means”. However, this Chinese domestic affair is not within scope of our present talks.

21. He said that second agenda item covered only practical matters at issue between China and US and that I had repeatedly indicated that discussion could involve only China and US. Hence he considered domestic affairs of China or US could not be made subjects of talks.

22. He stated that as he had previously pointed out, China has always advocated peaceful solutions of international disputes rather than recourse to force and that China is opposed threat or use of force to undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity of any state. He said that I had stated that US as member of UN agreed to refrain from threat or use of force in international relations. He stated that US by using force against China’s Taiwan has already broken principle of non-employment of force in international relations.

23. At approximately this point Wang abandoned his manuscript and continued extemporaneously. He said that mere statement of principle cannot resolve tension in Taiwan area. Practical question is how US is going to implement principle by actual deeds.

24. He could not accept the way I had raised question of status of Taiwan. Taiwan is Chinese territory and this cannot be disputed. That question has been settled long ago. Taiwan is as much Chinese territory as New York is American territory and cannot be separated from China.

25. He said that I had on one hand proposed to make announcement regarding renunciation of use of force. On other hand, I had openly made a statement this morning concerning justice of use of force by US in Taiwan area. If such American use of force is justifiable one is bound to question significance of Cairo Declaration, of Potsdam Agreement on which signature of US President is affixed, of public statements by American Presidents, and of UN Charter stipulations. If American use of force against Taiwan is justified, what was meaning of resistance against Japanese aggression. If American use of force against Taiwan is termed justified we are bound to say it is making farce of normally accepted standards of international law.

26. Wang stated that he also wished to say frankly that US armed occupation of Taiwan is not merely threat to security of China but also threat to security and peace in Far East. Chinese people consistently advocated peaceful settlement of international disputes and opposed settlement by force, but they will never yield to threat of force and will never recognize status quo.

27. He said that examples of divided nations that I had cited can never explain or justify American armed occupation of Taiwan.

28. He said that chief cause of tension lies in fact that US used force in the area. Such use of force greatly threatens China and other contries in that area. That was why it was necessary to carry on talks here. Purpose of talks is to improve relations between China and US and to ease tense situation in Far East. He said that if as proposed by China US applies principle of non-recourse to force and withdraws its armed forces from Taiwan area, then it would not only improve relations between our two countries, but at same time greatly reduce tension in that part of world.

29. He concluded by stating that the question in what manner China will liberate Taiwan is solely a domestic affair and not for discussion here and that Chinese people resolutely oppose any state that tries to interfere in their domestic affairs. He reserved comments on remaining parts of my statement for the next meeting.

30. I replied that if one government were entirely to concede to the views of another government, many situations would be resolved, but only in a one-sided manner. What governments can do is to say that differences must not lead them to war and that they will discuss problems in peaceful atmosphere free from threat of force from either side. I said that I was proposing no more at the moment. I was not asking him to concede to our point of view, but simply asking that we agree we will not fight over our points of view. Then we would be able to discuss other matters with a better hope of finding solutions.

31. Wang replied that of course we were trying to find better solutions in our talks and that it was certainly correct when I said that different points of view should not lead to war. He said that as he has stated on many occasions and as Premier Chou En-lai has also stated, Chinese people are friendly to the American people and do not wish to fight Americans. However the present situation can be described as dagger thrust into the body of China. Those who suffer are Chinese people.

32. Wang said that I had stated that no government can resolve a dispute with another government entirely in accord with its own views. He said he recognized that each party to a dispute has its own reasons, but one cannot say all reasons are correct. That is why it is necessary to have international law and standards of conduct such as UN Charter. That means each state must respect territorial integrity and sovereignty of other governments. If any government could interfere in internal affairs of other states in disregard of international law, outlook of world would indeed not be optimistic.

33. I replied that if his government was determined that the situation should not lead to war and if, as I had told him, my government is so determined, why should it not be possible for us simply to say so.

34. Wang replied that if declaration of renunciation of use of force is to be made then why cannot US specifically withdraw its armed forces from this area. He cited a Chinese proverb: only a person’s deeds can verify a person’s words. Only deeds give effect to words.

35. I replied that Wang was asking the US to abandon solemnly pledged words and agreements with others and to change its policies in area. I said I was not excluding discussion of other subjects but I was simply saying that we cannot discuss such subjects unless we have said we will not let differences lead us to war. That is fundamental to any fruitful discussion of differences. If his government shared my government’s determination that differences should not lead to war, I saw no reason why we should not say so. Once we had done this, we could have better hope in discussing other matters.

36. Wang replied that US is member of UN, and that he was asking US to abide by solemn pledge it has made in UN Charter and other international documents to which it is signatory. He said that if that spirit can be specifically implemented with deeds, we can expect progress in the world.

37. I added that there were two indisputable facts: one, there is a dispute between us; and, two, the spirit of the UN Charter is that disputes shall not be settled by recourse to force. I said that regarding our specific dispute, we were willing to state we would not resort to force. If his government would say the same thing, then we could start talking about the dispute in an atmosphere free from threat of force by either side.

38. Wang replied that if the US would withdraw its armed forces from Taiwan, it would certainly create peaceful atmosphere. He said that he hoped I would very carefully study his propsal and put forward constructive views.

39. I said I had nothing to add at this time. The meeting concluded with confirmation our previous agreement that the next meeting would be Thursday, October 27, and that the usual statement would be made to the press.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–2055. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.