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

311. Telegram 957 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 25, 1955, 6 p.m.

957. From Johnson.

Have just returned and seen Robertson’s Tedul 8 repeated Geneva 981 and have following comments:

1. Re para 1 reference telegram, while I am not in best position to judge it does not seem clear to me CHICOMS obtain any increased status and prestige from continuation talks during FonMin conference. In fact would seem to me talks at only Ambassadorial level with CHICOMS while four Foreign Ministers meeting same city does not give CHICOMS any special advantage they not already deriving from talks and may be somewhat our advantage.

2. Re para 2, am convinced that at least for time-being public pressure, and particularly to extent of recessing talks, on CHICOMS would be counterproductive in expediting releases.

3. Para 3, Wang is never going to agree to any recess for purpose allowing time completing “judicial processes” for release.

4. I believe there is much merit in third alternative set forth para 4. However in order set stage to obtain maximum benefit suggest following course of action:

(A) At October 27 meeting I would make presentation on missing military personnel and would suggest to Wang agreed communique following meeting would include statement we had continued discussion implementation agreed announcement and under item two U.S. had introduced topics renunciation force and missing military personnel and, as previously stated, PRC had introduced trade embargo and FonMin meeting. I would expect Wang reject whereupon I would inform him I would issue unilateral statement along similar lines except that I would omit reference to two PRC topics. Purpose of this would be supplement Secretary’s October 18 press conference statement and make clear to world opinion US reasonableness in entering into discussion item two even though PRC had not implemented agreed announcement.

(B) At November 3 meeting I would make threat of public statement on our dissatisfaction with implementation and

(C) If necessary would implement the threat at November 10 meeting which would be just two months from issuance agreed announcement and during midst Foreign Ministers Conference.

Gowen

Attachment

Note to Barnes

Washington, October 26, 1955

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Cladouhas of FE would like two extra copies of the attached. He said that they needed one for Mr. Sebald, one for Mr. McConaughy and one for himself. He wanted to know why they only got one and I told him that was usually the practice on eyes only and he said it wasn’t that he had received as many as 4 copies of one, but on checking it was one slugged E.O. for Robertson, etc.

Approve ____ OK_____

Disapprove ____________

Attachment

Note from Barnes to Murphy

Washington, October 25, 1955

G—Mr. Murphy

Action has been sent to:

FE—Mr. Robertson

Robert G. Barnes

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–2555. Secret; Niact. Repeated Priority Niact to Paris eyes only for Dulles as telegram 132.