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

319. Telegram 970 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 27, 1955, 7 p.m.

970. From Johnson.

1. Two hour forty-five minute meeting this morning opened by Wang with somewhat milder rehash CHICOM position on Taiwan which avoided renewal demand for US withdrawal and ended with presentation draft statement transmitted by separate tel.

2. I replied with statement along lines para one Deptel 996 and stated I would study and reply later concerning his draft statement.

3. He replied with long ad lib statement “rejecting” my statement on Taiwan. After some sparring and give and take I tried to probe further for meaning para 4 his draft statement to determine whether it was any move toward meeting our position on renunciation of force in Taiwan area. While his replies followed Chou En-lai formula they were somewhat more ambiguous than previously. Replying to my specific question he stated para 4 “included disputes between US and China in Taiwan area”. My specific probing on significance his continued use “conditions permitting” with respect “liberation” Taiwan led to no definite conclusion.

4. I then reverted to implementation in brief but strong terms to which he replied my information was not current with respect ability UK carry out its functions and rejected in harder terms than previously my raising question these meetings. He rebuffed all my efforts determine what he meant by my information not current.

5. I then made statement on missing military personnel in accordance Deptels 824 and 828. In reply he read prepared statement “rejecting assertion 450 Americans still allegedly being held” and flatly refused accept lists.

6. I replied by pointing out I had not alleged 450 “still being held” but was asking for information with regard to their fate. I then cited as example case of Army PFC. Paul E. Craig, pointing out his specific mention in Peiping broadcast and that they could not deny they had info with regard to him. If he were dead, all we were asking was when and where. There was then long and increasingly acrimonious discussion which I centered around facts in Craig case and humanitarian aspects. He rehashed position on fourteen thousand and reiterated entire matter should be taken up in MAC. He claimed he had answered our query by giving us list all Americans in China, including list last year all those who had died in China. He made direct request for information on fourteen thousand. I pointed out no relation between 14,000 and list 450, the case 14,000 analogous to Americans who remained their side and went to PRC. I said his refusal accept list was not in keeping with spirit our talks and made repeated efforts get him accept. After I had pushed him into tight corner by continually coming back to Craig case, he simply clammed up and refused to say anything more. It was clear he was under categorical instructions not to accept list and nothing I said was going to change this fact. Meeting closed on this very hard note with my reserving right revert to matter.

7. Next meeting November 3.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–2755. Confidential; Niact; Limited Distribution.