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

403. Telegram 1269 from Geneva¹

Geneva, December 8, 1955, 11 p.m.

1269. From Johnson.

1. I opened 29th meeting today with prepared statement on implementation as follows:

A. I have been greatly encouraged in progress I feel we have been making in our discussions. It has seemed to me that we have been successful in gradually enlarging area of agreement in our search for basis upon which announcement would be issued which would assure world of our determination that our clash of views and policies, including those in Taiwan area, would not lead to war.

B. In this connection I have often spoken of vital necessity in discussing this fundamental subject, of making certain that there is not only full and complete understanding between us of exact meaning and implications of any form of words upon which we may agree, but also confidence that agreements reached will be fully carried out. In this regard I have most earnestly and frankly spoken of my government’s dissatisfaction with way in which your government is carrying out obligations it assumed under our agreed announcement of September 10. That was first agreement reached between us and, in spite of very explicit words of that statement, it now appears there was either not an understanding of its terms, or its terms are being violated. My government considers latter is case. This does not create atmosphere conducive to discussion and agreement on second public announcement. My government and world public had every reason to expect that clear words of our statement of September 10 would be fully and effectively carried out. Words of first substantive paragraph of your portion of that statement are as clear as words can be: “PRC recognizes that Americans in PRC who desire to return to U.S. are entitled to do so, and declares that it has adopted and will further adopt appropriate measures so that they can expeditiously exercise their right to return.” That statement which was freely made by your government contains no conditions, exceptions, or qualifications such as are now being used to justify your government’s continued detention of American citizens imprisoned in your country. At time we were discussing this subject in detail you asked such terms as “quickly”, “very quickly”, etc., and I pointed out to you that word “expeditiously”, which you suggested for English text, meant just that, and my government and people would so understand it. However, almost three months have now passed since the issuance of that announcement and 14 Americans still remain in prison.

C. It is not realistic to expect progress in reaching another agreement unless there is clear evidence that there is good faith in proceeding to carry out agreements already reached. I have been instructed to make absolutely clear that my government does not feel that there has been good faith with regard to expeditious return of Americans detained in your country, as well as in carrying out other aspects of agreed announcement.

D. Not only are Americans not being expeditiously released, but those detained are not able freely to communicate with U.K. Charge as is also clearly provided in agreed announcement. Of 14 Americans still detained UK Charge has received communications from only two. Yet your government has not, and I am sure that it will not, allege that reason these imprisoned Americans have not communicated with UK Charge is that they do not desire to return. You told me at our last meeting that if these Americans desired to communicate with UK Charge, they were being assisted in doing so. I believe that you must not have had all facts at time you made that statement.

E. For example, on December 2, UK Charge finally received letter from Dr. Bradshaw which had been written on November 19 and postmarked November 28. In this letter Dr. Bradshaw stated that prison authorities had refused to forward to UK Charge two previous letters he had written, one on October 26 and another on November 10. It is understood that transmission of these previous letters was refused on grounds that such letters must be limited to request for interview with UK Charge. There is certainly nothing in our agreed announcement of September 10 that contains any such limitation, and on December 5 representative of UK Charge properly protested to your authorities suppression of Dr. Bradshaw’s earlier letters. Representative of UK Charge additionally pointed out that your authorities had never in any way indicated this. That communications to him originated by Americans had to be limited to mere request for interview.

F. Your authorities did not attempt deny fact that Dr. Bradshaw’s freedom of communication with Charge had been restricted but refused to accept protest on grounds that it went beyond the duties of UK Charge under agreed announcement. I thus assume that your authorities consider that this is only proper place for discussion of such matter. I do not agree that it cannot also be discussed by UK Charge in Peking, but am entirely willing discuss matter here.

G. This is clear evidence that your government has, in violation of terms of the September 10 agreed announcement, obstructed free communication of Americans with UK Charge. My government expects that any similar obstructions to free communication of other remaining Americans with UK Charge and other obstacles to full performance of his duties will be promptly removed.

H. However, I was encouraged to note statement by your authorities to UK Charge on December 6 that consideration was being given to request for early release of Dr. Bradshaw so that he could accompany his wife, and wish again to express hope that this matter can be promptly handled.

I. I will have further comments to make on your proposed draft at a subsequent meeting. I have nothing further to say today.

2. Wang replied that it was in interests of progress our discussions that his side presented new draft last meeting. Was regrettable I had not been able this meeting put forward concrete views U.S. side on that draft. Certainly hoped, as I had stated, would be able put forward latest views on draft at later meeting.

3. Turning to prepared statement Wang continued that in view of fact I had raised number questions regarding his draft at last meeting, he was willing make few amplifications on that draft. As I had specifically raised at last meeting question whether draft covered Taiwan area, he willing again amplify statement in explicit manner. It is specified in new draft that China and U.S. should settle disputes between them peacefully without resort to threat of use of force.

4. Wang said as heart of Sino-American dispute is precisely centered on Taiwan so it goes without saying that new draft covers this question. That I had said describing Taiwan as area where interests and policies China and U.S. clash seriously shows that tension Taiwan area is international matter and not simply domestic matter how to deal with Chiang clique.

5. Wang said in 1946 Chiang Kai-shek launched large-scale civil war and Chinese people forced to resort to war to overthrow Chiang and establish PRC. Notwithstanding fact some people been adopting hostile attitude towards victory Chinese people, nobody could deny fact liberation of mainland and large number coastal islands by PRC has never created international conflict or danger war. Quite to contrary has greatly benefited stability Far East and has contributed to world peace and security.

6. Wang said in line with consistent stand, PRC willing strive for peaceful settlement disputes when circumstances permit. This includes such domestic matters as Chiang clique. However, this being matter of Chinese domestic affairs must not be made subject these talks.

7. Wang said present situation in Taiwan area is that U.S. side has initiated use of force and is threatening use force in interfering with liberation Taiwan and coastal islands. Is this situation which creates danger to peace? I had chosen skip over this fact, however it cannot be evaded.

8. Wang said each day U.S. armed forces remain in Taiwan area is a day of threat to PRC. According to UN Charter, PRC entitled demand U.S. side remove its forces from Taiwan area in order preserve its territorial integrity. In interest of relaxing tensions, China proposed as it did at Bandung conference that China and U.S. enter into negotiations to ease and eliminate tension Taiwan area.

9. Wang said party which now using force and threat force is none other than U.S. side. However China is not afraid of American force and threats. China not afraid of proposing enter into negotiations precisely because it determined not to yield to American force and threats. I had indicated that U.S. unwilling enter into negotiations under threat Chinese might use force at any time. Fact is contrary. It is Chinese side being threatened and U.S. side which already initiated use force.

10. Wang said nonetheless, China still desires settle disputes including dispute in Taiwan area through peaceful negotiations. Such negotiations aimed at removing force and threat of force which U.S. already applying against China. PRC side has consistently advocated negotiations, however I must not think PRC side thereby recognizing status quo of U.S. seizure Taiwan and interference PRC internal affairs, which is last thing PRC side will ever do.

11. Wang said new draft envisages two steps. Expresses determination to settle disputes through peaceful means without threat or use force. U.S. side has also indicated it would subscribe this principle. PRC side has taken account of view of U.S. side and draft adds Ambassadors should continue these talks to seek practical means for realization this desire.

12. Wang said PRC side considers that relaxation tension in Taiwan area is too serious to be lightly disposed of in Ambassadorial talks. Settlement these questions should be left to conference Foreign Ministers China and U.S. In presenting latest draft PRC side preserved its proposal for conference between Foreign Ministers China and U.S. for purpose eliminating tension Taiwan area. However, if U.S. side desires discuss and settle this question in these talks PRC side will not object to making such attempt.

13. Wang said he must stress that new draft is integral whole. Question tension in Taiwan area must be discussed and settled. Refusal discuss would be tantamount to requiring that PRC recognize status quo in Taiwan area and surrender its sovereign rights, which is what PRC side absolutely cannot do.

14. Wang said new draft has already incorporated common ground in our views. If U.S. really sincere in expressing desire for settlement Sino-American disputes, U.S. side should adopt new draft and then continue discussions between us in order seek settlements.

15. Wang hoped these remarks he had made might help me fully consider questions before us.

16. Wang said I had again this morning raised question implementation agreed announcement. He could not accept allegation PRC side has violated announcement. Since I had repeatedly raised implementation question at every meeting he would like make few comments.

17. Reading from second prepared statement Wang said PRC side considers that since we reached agreement on first item our agenda these talks and since each side has entrusted implementation agreement to third state, questions regarding implementation should be referred to respective third states. There is no ground for repeatedly raising questions these meetings. Entanglement first and second items preventing further progress in discussions.

18. Wang said moreover facts have borne out that PRC side has been faithfully implementing agreement. Party failing implement is U.S. side.
PRC side has provided U.S. side with complete list Americans in PRC. This was done as early as last year and again at opening present talks. U.S. side because it has been provided with these lists can correspond with Americans in China.

19. He said U.S. side also maintains liaison station Hong Kong and can make use this station in checking list.

20. Wang said thus far U.S. side has not provided PRC with complete list Chinese in U.S. PRC side can only learn status remaining Chinese in U.S. from few Chinese who return from U.S. PRC side has every reason request Indian Embassy find out situation. However U.S. Government has made known it cannot assist Indian Embassy this regard.

21. Wang said I had stated there is no restriction on Indian Embassy perfoming functions assist Chinese return but this does not correspond with the facts.

22. He said moreover, even in case those Chinese who I had admitted being prevented from departing, so far many of them still unable effect return. Not only has India no means offer assistance on its own to these people, but according to recent information U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service has of late made regulation requiring all Chinese students get entry permit Taiwan before given date. This intimidation Chinese students designed forestall return. This gross violation agreement.

23. Wang said it is intention PRC side make representations U.S. Government through Indian Embassy. However still felt such questions should not be brought up here so as hinder progress in present talks.

24. Wang said if U.S. side nevertheless insists raising these questions PRC side bound raise following questions:

A) Is U.S. side prepared provide complete list names and addresses Chinese in U.S.?

B) Will U.S. side aid Indians determine status Chinese in U.S.?

C) Is U.S. side prepared rescind measures violating spirit of agreement?
Before these questions are satisfactorily answered PRC side could not answer question U.S. side might raise.

25. Wang said he considered if both sides sincere in desiring progress should concentrate on second item and adopt reasonable proposal of PRC side under this item.

26. I replied that when present talks began, first question on agenda was return of civilians. I had hoped that September 10 agreed announcement would resolve that question. So far as U.S. concerned, question resolved even before September 10 because U.S. had rescinded all measures preventing return of Chinese in U.S. I had informed Wang of that at outset of talks. Nevertheless to show good faith U.S. had entered into arrangement that India could assist any Chinese in U.S. who felt prevented from returning.

27. I said many vague and general statements had been made here and by Wang’s government concerning supposed measures by U.S. Government preventing return of Chinese. It is well known in U.S. and well known to Indian Embassy that there is nothing to prevent any Chinese in U.S. from communicating with Indian Embassy if he feels obstructed in departure.

28. I said under agreed announcement, U.S. agreed accept any representations by Indian Embassy on behalf of Chinese who felt there was obstruction to departure from U.S. It is important to look at facts. From outset of talks to present moment, not one single specific case called to attention U.S. Government in which departure prevented.

29. I said insofar as Americans in Wang’s country concerned, in spite of terms of agreed announcement and arrrangements made for UK carry out functions, 14 Americans still detained.

30. I said insofar as lists are concerned, Wang would recall that at first meeting I gave him list all Americans we had grounds for believing were prevented from leaving. That list compiled with great effort by my government.

31. I said insofar as efforts his government or Indian Embassy determine status Chinese in U.S., Wang would recall announcement referred only to those who desired return. I would repeat my statement that any Chinese in U.S. who feels obstructed from returning is free communicate any way he desires with Indian Embassy. This in addition freedom communicate with Wang’s country.

32. I said after agreed announcement was issued, I had carefully outlined measures taken assure every person covered fully informed of its terms. In addition 70,000 copies agreed announcement were being posted in post offices throughout U.S. Thus not slightest possibility any Chinese in U.S. not fully informed his rights under announcement. Any Chinese has full freedom exercise those rights. In spite of all this, no single case called to attention U.S. Government of obstruction to departure for Wang’s country or any country of his choice.

33. I said this contrasts sharply with situation Americans in Wang’s country. Wang had spoken of not entangling item one and item two of agenda. I had no desire entangle these subjects, but to my regret desire Wang’s government fully and promptly carry out agreement has inevitably entangled subjects.

34. I said it was difficult consider another announcement or public statement except in light of how previous statement carried out. Before agreeing on further statements there must be full confidence between us that any agreement will be carried out. For this purpose I made statement this morning. If we were to make progress there must be this understanding and confidence between us. My government is anxious there be progress and in interest of progress has instructed me make clear our feeling concerning implementation our first agreement.

35. Wang replied he agreed progress in regard further statement will depend on manner in which previous agreement carried out. He wanted point out, however, that proposal for second statement originated with U.S. side. He felt there was no ground for making implementation previous agreement prerequisite for further statement. We had reached agreement item one concerning return civilians and so far as his side concerned agreement all along faithfully carried out. Since beginning talks, 41 Americans left China, including American civilians and number of Americans released as result of lenient measures adopted his side. This figure exceeded two thirds of Americans in China at time of announcement.

36. Wang said insofar as Americans in general category concerned, they will be able depart promptly upon application. They will not encounter difficulties or obstruction. This in conformity agreement reached September 10. In light of this, what grounds are there to allege his side not faithfully carrying out agreement?

37. Wang said as for Americans who have committed crimes he recalled he had clearly and repeatedly explained stand his side in course of discussions item one. He had never stated Americans who had committed crimes would be able return upon issuance agreed announcement. Question their return must be handled accordance Chinese legal procedures. Every sovereign state entitled this right. Would I imagine case of Chinese in U.S. who had committed murder. Would he be permitted return promptly? It was therefore groundless accuse his side of detaining Americans.

38. Wang said I had stated Chinese in U.S. free depart from U.S. According recent information U.S. Immigration Service is requiring Chinese students U.S. obtain entry permits Taiwan before given date. Is this not attempted persecution Chinese students? Can it be said this measure is in conformity September 10 agreement? Party which has failed carry out and has violated agreements is U.S. His side intended make representations with U.S. through Indian Embassy. However, he had no desire bring up this question at present talks, lest it hinder progress of talks.

39. I said I wanted ask only one question. Did Wang know of single case, or had he been informed of single case, or had Indian Embassy called attention to single case of Chinese in U.S. whose departure prevented by U.S. Government?

40. Wang replied U.S. had not provided lists Chinese in U.S. Consequently it was difficult ascertain this. Even in cases of Chinese on list I had given him many not yet able return. Only small number have returned. Without mentioning further cases, requirement of U.S. Immigration Service for students obtain entry permits Taiwan constitutes obstruction on part of U.S. Government.

41. I said I did not know what this alleged requirement of Immigration Service was. Even if it were fact, I did not see how it would prevent Chinese who wanted to leave from doing so.

42. Wang said by what right was U.S. entitled change status these people. He considered U.S. Government had no right adopt such coercive measures. Measure constituted persecution of Chinese and is designed prevent return to China.

43. I said I failed to see this. Question appeared to relate to students desiring remain in U.S.

44. Wang said he considered U.S. action illegal in principle. Chinese residents in U.S. should be free decide to go anywhere and should not be subject unreasonable coercion.

45. I said I would repeat that any Chinese who feels subject to coercion is free communicate Indian Embassy.

46. Wang said that is what he was going to do. His government was requesting Indian Embassy make representations.

47. I said I had said any individual in U.S. who felt prevented from returning was free to communicate. Indian Embassy was free investigate facts any such case. We had agreed accept the representations from Indian Embassy any such case. I did not know of single case where there have been such representations.

48. Wang said September 10 announcement specified both governments would take further measures facilitate return civilians. However measures of U.S. Immigration Service cannot be construed constitute measures envisaged agreed announcement. If dissatisfaction with implementation agreed announcement was to be revised [raised], it was Chinese side that feels entitled raise such dissatisfaction.

49. I said agreed announcement certainly did say just that. Discussion had centered on Americans in prison. It was our understanding his government would take further measures permit their return. His government presumably had in mind before it made announcement what measures it would take that regard. What I had pointed out was that those measures not so far taken regard 14 of Americans who were subject our discussion. I had pointed out in addition that there is evidence freedom 14 Americans communicate with UK Charge under agreement announcement has been obstructed. That certainly is not carrying out of agreed announcement.

50. Wang replied he had nothing further.

51. Next meeting Thursday December 15. Same release to press.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–855. Confidential; Limited Distribution.