Office of the Historian

404. Telegram 1270 from Geneva1

Geneva, December 9, 1955, 10 a.m.
[Facsimile Page 1]

1270. From Johnson.

1.
Wang’s “three questions” at last meeting and his allegation concerning INS requirement for Taiwan entry permits give me excellent basis for following up on implementation at next meeting.
2.
Would appreciate information on probable factual basis if any of allegation concerning INS requirement and suggestions concerning any further reply I might make this regard.
3.
With regard three questions I would promise reply:
A)
No provision in agreed announcement for furnishing list Chinese in US and has no relation to obligations under agreed announcement which relates only to those who desire return. Would refer discussion this subject when agreed announcement being negotiated. Test of performance under agreed announcement is whether in fact any obstruction to those who desire to return, freedom communicate with representative third state, freedom representative third state investigate facts any such case, and willingness receive and promptly act on representations from representative third state concerning specific cases. Facts in CHICOM and US performance speak for themselves.
B)
There is nothing in agreed announcement concerning investigation of “status” all Chinese in US. Sole question this [Facsimile Page 2] regard between US and PRC under agreed agenda as well as agreed announcement is freedom Chinese in US who desire do so return PRC.
C)
At opening these talks US had already completed all necessary measures remove all obstructions to departure Chinese who desire return PRC. This continues in effect. There is in addition arrangement for Indian Embassy functions. Chinese who do not desire return PRC are in no way matter between US and PRC. If one were to speak of measures violating “spirit” of agreed announcement PRC should in addition to releasing imprisoned Americans repeal exit permit requirement so that Americans in PRC and Chinese in US would be on same basis.
4.
In addition foregoing, subject to views UK I could raise Miner case (Mytel 1202).
5.
It will be Wang’s “turn” speak first next time and foregoing somewhat subject to what he may say on implementation in his opening statement.
6.
Believe at next meeting I should also make counterproposal on renunciation force concerning which am submitting my views by following tel.
7.
Have arranged with UN address letters Wang and myself stating fact services curtailed in UN Palais during week between Christmas and New Years and asking whether we expect meet that week and will therefore require special arrangements for servicing meeting room. I will at next meeting use letter as basis attempt obtain Wang’s agreement to omitting meeting during that week.
Gowen
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–955. Secret; Priority; Limited Distribution.↩