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

417. Telegram 1289 from Geneva¹

Geneva, December 15, 1955, 11 p.m.

1289. From Johnson.

1. I opened 30th meeting today with prepared statement on implementation as follows:

A. At our last meeting, I think we were in agreement in expressing our common desire avoid what you have termed entangling question of return of civilians to their respective countries with other questions before us. I have pointed out that only sure way of avoiding such entanglement was promptly and faithfully carry out terms of agreed announcement September 10. I have all along maintained that two of us here should be prepared discuss and do everything possible eliminate any differences of opinion with respect to this first agreement between us and thereby establish sound basis which would give us best hope of making further progress in dealing with other vitally important matters confronting us.

B. You will recall that following issuance of our announcement of September 10 I pointed out favorable atmosphere which its prompt and full implementation could create for progress in discussion of second part our agenda. I pointed out advantage of promptly putting into effect appropriate measures for implementation of our announcement, which would dispose of problem we were called upon to deal with under agenda item one, before attempting resolve complicated and difficult problems under second item our agenda.

C. Although I did not feel that your government had in fact initiated all appropriate measures called for under announcement, on strength of your assurances in this regard I undertook discussion with you of questions under item two. I had hopes that entanglement of our two agenda items in our talks could thus be avoided. I am deeply disappointed and disturbed that my hopes have not thus far been realized. In fact in some ways results appear to have been negative when compared with situation prior to issuance of our agreed announcement.

D. When we arrived here to begin our discussions on August 1, there were to our knowledge 52 Americans whose departure from your country was being prevented in one way or another and whose names I gave to you. On August 1 you informed me that of that number 11 were being permitted return to U.S. On September 6 you informed me of 12 additional persons of that group who would be permitted depart. On September 10 you informed me of another 10 who would be permitted to return. Thus, in approximately 6 weeks between August 1 and September 10 action was taken permit 33 out of 52 persons depart. In approximately 14 weeks since September 10, of that group only 5 additional persons have been given permission depart. Thus, however results are regarded, that is by absolute numbers or by proportion, results in this regard since September 10 have been extremely disappointing and out of keeping with my government’s understanding and expectation of what was reasonably to be expected under agreed announcement.

E. At our last meeting I also spoke of restrictions imposed by your authorities on freedom of Americans communicate with UK Charge, as provided for in agreed announcement, and other restrictions on ability of UK Charge carry out his functions.

F. I have also spoken several times in particular of cases of Dr. and Mrs. Bradshaw. You have often spoken of lenient and humanitarian consideration by your authorities of cases of imprisoned Americans. There is certainly no better case in which there is opportunity now demonstrate this than case of these two persons.

G. UK Charge who visited Mrs. Bradshaw on December 10 fully confirms our previous understanding that this unfortunate woman is now mentallly and physically in entirely helpless condition. She is eating practically nothing and could well pass away at any time unless prompt steps are taken. She is physically and mentally entirely incapable of making arrangements for her departure and travelling from country. Apparently one of her few touches with reality is knowledge that her husband remains in prison and desire be reunited with him in departing from country. Apart from agreed announcement these humanitarian considerations alone should dictate prompt release of Dr. Bradshaw.

H. It is our understanding that even full sentence of Dr. Bradshaw expires in March. He is understandably extremely concerned over condition of his wife and desires immediately return with her. I should think that policy of lenience, particularly in light of agreed announcement, should make possible shortening of his five-year sentence by mere matter of ten weeks.

I. It is understandable that known facts with regard to Dr. and Mrs. Bradshaw greatly increase concern of my government for fate of imprisoned Americans with regard to whom we have no information and accentuates need for their expeditious release so that they can exercise right of return recognized in agreed announcement.

J. At our last meeting you raised several questions with respect to carrying out by my government of obligations it assumed under agreed announcement. I am entirely prepared and willing fully answer those questions, even though they do not appear relate to factual information concerning any specific case nor to terms of agreed announcement.

K. Your first question related to whether my government was prepared provide Indian Embassy with complete list of names and addresses of all Chinese in U.S.

L. You will recall that we very fully discussed this question at time we were discussing text of our agreed announcement, and I am surprised that you again raise matter. Next, I desire point out again that statement made by our two governments on July 25 with respect to holding of these talks, as well as our agreed first agenda item, relates solely to persons who desire return. I also want point out that agreed announcement of September 10 very specifically refers only to persons who desire return

M. At very outset of our talks I gave you list of Americans in your country who my government had reason believe desired return. I have not discussed or raised question of other Americans who may be in your country.

N. There is nothing in agreed announcement which in any way places any obligation on my government supply, either to Indian Embassy or to your government, list of all Chinese in U.S. Even if it would be possible to compile such list it could have no relation to ability of Chinese in U.S. return to your country. Tests of performance of obligations assumed under agreed announcement are very simple.

O. First test is whether there is in fact any obstruction to return of individuals who decide do so, and whether individuals are therefore able expeditiously exercise their right to return. As I have continually pointed out since beginning of these talks, my government has removed all measures which would obstruct any Chinese in U.S. who desires return from doing so.

P. The second test is whether any individual who believes that, contrary to this declared policy, he is encountering obstruction in departure, can freely communicate with representative of third country. I have repeatedly and unconditionally stated that any Chinese in U.S. is entirely free communicate with Indian Embassy in this regard. Indian Embassy is in position fully confirm this to your government.

Q. Next test is whether representative of third country is able investigate facts in any such case. Again I have fully and unconditionally assured you that Indian Embassy is able do this. And, again, Indian Embassy is in position confirm this to your government.

R. Next test is willingness of government concerned receive and promptly act upon representations from representative of third country concerning any specific case. I have repeatedly assured you here and Indian Embassy has been assured of willingness of my government to act in this manner. However, as I have pointed out, I do not have knowledge of single case in which Indian Embassy has felt it necessary make representations, nor do I know of any complaint of any kind from Indian Embassy regarding willingness of my government fully assist and cooperate with it in carrying out its functions.

S. Without spending further time on this, I believe that facts with regard to manner and extent to which our respective governments have met these tests of performance under agreed announcement speak for themselves.

T. Your second question related to assistance to Indian Embassy in determining what you termed status of all Chinese in U.S. This is very vague term and I am not sure exactly what you may mean by it. There is certainly nothing in our agreed announcement with regard to investigation of status of all Chinese in U.S. Sole question between our two governments with regard to Chinese in U.S. under terms of July 25 statement by our governments, agreed agenda, as well as our agreed announcement, is that of freedom of Chinese in U.S., who desire do so, return to your country. I, therefore, assume that by investigation of status you mean whether individuals do desire return to your country. This is, of course, something that can be determined only by each individual for himself, and any so-called “investigation of status” has no relation thereto. Our agreed announcement and steps taken by my government implement it fully and comprehensively deal with all aspects of this question. As I have many times pointed out, any Chinese in United States who desires return to your country is under no compulsion or requirement obtain permission from anyone or inform anyone. Neither is he prevented from informing or communicating with anyone. For example, if he feels that there is any obstruction to his departure, he is entirely free communicate with Indian Embassy. He does not have to submit such communication through anyone else, nor does anyone have right in any way interfere with his freedom of such communication. There is thus complete and firm guarantee that any Chinese in the U.S., who in fact desires to return to your country, is able do so, and no general investigation of status of Chinese in United States is required.

U. Your third question related to rescinding by U.S. of any measures which you term would violate spirit of agreed announcement. I am not aware of any such measures, and it is rather your government which should rescind and correct measures which not only violate spirit but letter of our agreed announcement. There continues to be no obstruction to departure of any Chinese from U.S. for your country. As I have many times pointed out, there is not even any requirement for Chinese departing from U.S. obtain exit permit. Requirement of exit permit in itself entails delay and obstruction no matter how promptly it may be acted upon. Requirement of obtaining exit permit also pre-supposes ability of the agency to which application is made to deny permit. Therefore if one were to speak of rescinding of measures violating spirit of agreed announcement, reference would have to be made to exit permit requirements of your government. Only repeal of such requirement with respect to Americans in your country would place our two countries in position of equality and reciprocity in this regard.

V. At our last meeting you referred to supposed requirement that Chinese in U.S. obtain entry permits into Taiwan. I have investigated this matter and preliminary statement, which I made to you at our last meeting, I find to be entirely correct. This relates only to general requirements under our immigration laws that aliens, admitted to the U.S. temporarily, desiring to extend their stay must present valid evidence that upon expiration of their temporary stay, they will be able to proceed to another country. Thus matter relates entirely to Chinese desiring remain in U.S., rather than Chinese desiring return to your country, and in no way interferes with or hinders ability of Chinese in U.S. return to your country. Thus matter has no relation either to letter or spirit of our agreed announcement.

W. I have spoken thus frankly with regard to this matter as I hope you continue share my feeling that it is important that in privacy of this room two of us not attempt dissimulate and conceal differences but openly discuss them with view of finding solutions.

X. I have spoken in some detail concerning our agreed announcement on September 10 in hope that our differences with regard to this matter could once and for all be resolved and that, fully understanding our point of view, your government would take the necessary steps remove this impediment to understanding between us and to progress in our discussions of other matters. I feel that encouraging progress we have been able make toward finding acceptable form of words to express our determination that our differences should not lead to war makes it doubly urgent that this other matter be quickly resolved. It is in this spirit I have made this statement this morning and it is in this spirit I hope it will be most carefully considered by you and your government.
End prepared statement.

2. Wang replied he had already made known position PRC side on questions relating to first item on agenda which I had raised at last meeting.

3. Turning to prepared statement Wang continued during meeting this morning I had again raised questions in this respect. Though he had already made his reply on same questions I had raised nevertheless he willing once again express position his side.

4. Wang said at last meeting and again this morning I had raised question on first item and without grounds accused PRC side violating agreed announcement. At same time U.S. side kept stalling discussion of second item. PRC side considered this attitude could in no way be reconciled with the statements and the gestures I had made regarding my desire see progress in talks.

5. Wang said our first item concerned return civilians. It was none other than U.S. side which violating terms agreement. In first place as he had previously pointed out PRC side had provided us complete list of Americans in China at outset our talks whereas U.S. side failed do same by providing complete list all Chinese in U.S. so that Indian Embassy in U.S. had no means of fully carrying out functions specified in agreed announcement.

6. Wang said he could not agree to my statement that this question bears no relation to discussion of return civilians.

7. Wang said his side has every reason to request Indian Embassy look into status Chinese in U.S. and investigate facts concerning obstructions their departure, as well as offer assistance in effecting return. Yet U.S. has made known it cannot give any assistance to Indian Embassy that regard.

8. Wang said U.S. side claims Indian Embassy can only communicate with Chinese nationals after individuals have put in request.

9. Wang said though PRC side does not agree this interpretation, in circumstances since U.S. side adopting such interpretation PRC side can only treat British Charge on parallel footing.

10. Wang said and now U.S. side expresses dissatisfaction with situation which has been created solely by U.S. side. This is nothing but making a nonsensical fuss.

11. Wang said it only PRC side which entitled raise protest. If U.S. side wishes alter this situation it must first provide complete list names addresses Chinese in U.S.

12. Wang said in second place American prisoners held in Chinese prisons are those who have breached law. During period they are serving sentences they not entitled to request return. To speak of obstruction to departure is even more out of question.

13. Wang said however as PRC side has stated Chinese Government reviewing these cases accordance Chinese legal procedures as well as taking behavior individual into account and will then decide measures to be taken towards them.

14. Wang said it is matter of fact that China has in accordance its own statement already taken concrete steps and is carrying on reviewing work.

15. Wang said China has even made available to the prisoners full text agreed announcement and has lent hand to British Charge in distributing notices these people concerning agreed announcement.

16. Wang said in the event of individuals making request British Charge is also assisted to communicate with and interview them.

17. Wang said I could not deny that letters from these people asking British Charge for assistance have all been permitted to be forwarded.

18. Wang said during term of their sentences American prisoners’ outgoing communications of course must be handled according to regulations laid down by competent Chinese authorities.

19. Wang said however other side this matter is that U.S. side never informed PRC side as to exactly how many Chinese imprisoned in U.S. nor has Indian Embassy been given list, so it has no means of making check. Indian Embassy also finds no way extending assistance to such persons. Such situation is unequitable.

20. Wang said now that U.S. side has raised question of Americans who have breached laws PRC side demands U.S. should first submit list of Chinese imprisoned in United States.

21. Wang said in third place U.S. side has also kept raising question of rate at which PRC side has been releasing law breaking Americans. As he had specifically stated, this would not advance implementation of agreed announcement. Americans who had broken law must be handled in accordance Chinese legal procedures and this could by no means be hastened by setting deadline. Such is a matter Chinese sovereign rights.

22. Wang said I had also time and again made reference to respecting Chinese legal procedures and avoiding actions prejudicing Chinese sovereign rights.

23. Wang said thus U.S. side has no justification whatever to raise demand for effecting release by a deadline or otherwise making such a demand under different cloak.

24. Wang said PRC side has been releasing Americans who have breached a law. From beginning these talks on August 1 already 26 among 40 Americans who had breached laws have been released. This is fact which I cannot but recognize. Already two-thirds of Americans have been released.

25. Wang said however no corresponding measures being taken with respect Chinese being held in prison in U.S.

26. Wang said in fourth place insofar as ordinary Americans in PRC concerned they have never encountered any difficulty in departing. Since beginning these talks China been extending assistance to expedite handling their pending affairs in order they may effect their return at early date.

27. Wang said 16 who applied to return were all permitted return. 3 of 16 have not yet departed from China. That is due their having unsettled affairs. However, China giving them all assistance.

28. Wang said the remaining American nationals who may later desire depart will also be able make their departure and can also count on being given similar assistance.

29. Wang said insofar as Chinese in U.S. concerned, even in case of 103 Chinese whom U.S. side admitted had long wanted depart but whose departure been prevented, 38 of them not yet returned up to present.

30. Wang said U.S. side stated that they were permitted to depart. However U.S. side never submitted their addresses nor accounted for failure to effect their return. Moreover U.S. side has refused assist Indian Embassy look into their status.

31. Wang said in fifth place PRC side particularly wants lodge protest in connection with measure of Immigration Naturalization Service which requires Chinese students remaining in U.S. to obtain entry permits for Taiwan.

32. Wang said I had said at last meeting that even if this was case it was not violation agreement. I had again this morning made reference to my previous statement. However that statement is sheer sophistry.

33. Wang said this requirement of Immigration Naturalization Service has nothing in common with arrangements generally required of foreign nationals before they effect their departure.

34. Wang said it entirely understandable that Chinese students may not be able make their return for time being whether because they not yet completed studies or because they might be delayed by other personal affairs.

35. Wang said by requiring these Chinese students proceed Taiwan U.S. obviously subjecting them further threat so that in future they will not dare demand return mainland of China.

36. Wang said as far back as last April State Department had admitted that “some Chinese students may refrain from applying to Immigration Naturalization Service for permission return to mainland for fear of being refused”. And now U.S. not only failed take measure eliminate apprehension created during long period in which they been subject obstruction and threat but has further adopted threats against them. This is entirely in violation letter and spirit agreed announcement. PRC side demands that U.S. side promptly remove such regulations which violate agreed announcement.

37. Wang said it is U.S. side which has violated agreement reached on first item. Yet U.S. side has been making accusations against PRC side without any grounds. U.S. Secretary of State and other spokesmen have reversed the merits of this case by accusing PRC side of alleged failure implement. In view of this Chinese Government has decided make statement on this question.

38. Wang said he must point out from series of statement made by US on first item of agenda it appears U.S. side has regarded agreement as purely unilateral requirement PRC side assume obligations while US side not bound. U.S. side not only failed provide PRC side and Indians with facilities but laid down regulations in violation of the agreement. He urged U.S. side implement agreement and still considered we should proceed item two discussion.

39. Wang said in course discussion of second item it is U.S. side which suggested renunciation force in international relations. It was also U.S. side which demanded that two sides make statement this respect. PRC side has not only put forward reasonable draft but again submitted new draft drawn on basis points that have been agreed or may be agreed.

40. Wang said at previous meeting I had stated as result of effort PRC side there had been considerable progress in talks. At last meeting had indicated it would be unrealistic enter into another agreement before previous agreement fully implemented.

41. Wang said it would appear that it is chance of agreement that has made U.S. side hastily revert to same self-contradictory position which U.S. side had taken couple of months ago when U.S. side insisted on final implementation agreed announcement before entering into discussion of second item.

42. Wang said this situation could not but pose once more question of whether U.S. side has sincere desire for progress when it insists on the condition of final implementation before there will be another agreement. Did I mean that there could be an agreement only after all Chinese in U.S. desiring to return had done so? If that were what I meant it would not be a matter of few months but a matter of years for the return of Chinese in U.S. who number tens of thousands.

43. Wang said U.S. side must see that if it attempts by this method to drag out or break up the talks it will get nothing good out of it.

44. Wang said he wished to point out that if U.S. side was sincere there is no justification for entangling talks with question of item one. Agreement should be reached on new draft of PRC side. Then talks could proceed to negotiation on problems at issue between both sides.

45. I replied that either Wang had misunderstood me, in which case I was sorry I had not made myself clear, or he had chosen distort what I had said concerning relationship of agreed announcement of September 10 and possible future agreements. Wang had quoted me as saying it would be unrealistic to enter into another agreement before first was fully implemented. I did not recall having said that and felt sure I hadn’t. What I had said, was that I felt it would be unrealistic enter into another agreement unless full confidence was established that first was being carried out. I had many times referred to importance of confidence and full understanding between us, without which it would be unrealistic enter into other agreements. I had understood at last meeting he agreed with that.

46. I said I had for these reasons discussed agreed announcement in such detail. Far from desiring to retard progress I was hoping by this to expedite progress. In that spirit I had frankly discussed matter. If I did not desire make progress, I certainly would not take time and effort discuss this first matter as seriously as I had. I would be doing disservice to both of us if I attempted conceal or gloss over my government’s feeling concerning operation of first announcement.

47. I said we should be completely frank. At time Wang and I had discussed agreed announcement, it was clear between us that largest group of Americans in his country under discussion was those in prison. I had made it clear at that time I had no intent interfere with method his government chose handle problem.

48. I said at time we issued agreed announcement, only Americans remaining Wang’s country concerning whom U.S. had no assurances in regard to departure were those in prison. Our long discussion of draft agreed announcement had revolved almost entirely about this group. I had at first suggested problem be resolved by permitting their return prior to any statement. When Wang not willing, I had suggested release be simultaneous with issuance agreed announcement. When Wang did not accept that proposal, I suggested at least private understanding concerning length of time that would be needed. Wang unable accept that position. However, Wang had told me many times, time required would be very short. I would not review entire discussion that led up to suggestion by Wang and acceptance by US of word “expeditiously”.

49. I said it was certainly clear in using that word concerning release of Americans in PRC we were talking about Americans in prison. It was also clear that phrase “further appropriate measures” pertained to measures within PRC sovereignty that would be taken to bring about release these Americans.

50. I said sometime before we issued announcement, Wang had indicated review of number of cases had been completed. On September 10, he informed me of these 10 names whose review completed. I did not know how long review of 10 had taken, but presumably review started after August 1. As I had pointed out this morning, this made total of 33 persons assured release in six week period between August 1 and September 10, including 12 names given me September 6 and 11 names August 1. In fourteen weeks since that time, only 5 additional released. As I had said, it appeared issuance agreed announcement has in fact slowed up resolution this problem.

51. I said I had not raised question of complete implementation of September 10 announcement. I thought it could and should have been completely implemented before this, insofar as this group of Americans is concerned. If it could have been, this certainly would have had beneficial effects. Nevertheless, what I have been raising is only question whether statement has any real substance or meaning insofar as this group is concerned.

52. I said on basis of facts it is certainly understandable that my government has doubts concerning how much meaning statement really has. Apparently PRC had reservations with respect to meaning and substance of statement. Those reservations not apparent to my government when it agreed to enter into statement. What I was asking in all earnestness was that some action be taken by PRC which would remove doubts on part my government.

53. I said turning again to questions he had raised, I honestly did not see how they bore any relationship to question of implementation. As I had pointed out there are simple tests of manner in which announcement is being implemented. I would not take the time to repeat. However, basic test is whether or not there is obstruction to any Chinese departing U.S. for PRC or any other country. In spite of all discussion revolving about this question, there is still to be produced as single case of any kind of official obstruction by U.S. since my assurances to Wang this regard on August 2.

54. I said on one hand he had raised question of 38 Chinese who had not returned, out of group of 103. On other hand he had made statement acknowledging some Chinese in U.S. may not desire return for time being. In regard to 103, he apparently still not clear what that group consisted of. I had never said that all of group desired return and prevented from doing so. I did not want to go again over issuance of restraining orders. I wanted to make clear, however, that issuance those orders not necessarily related to whether person desired return. Orders issued, as I had pointed out, in absence of exit permit system to prevent departure of persons we did not desire go PRC at that time. Some persons that group may not at any time have in fact desired return. Others may have subsequently changed their mind. I had no way of knowing.

55. I said facts in individual cases not important. Important thing is whether persons now know that they free to go if they so desire and that if they feel obstructed they free communicate with Indian Embassy. Each person individually informed restraining order his case lifted. Each person aware of his right to get on boat and leave if he desired do so. Each person perfectly aware of ability and right to communicate with Indian Embassy if he feels obstructed. That applies to all Chinese in U.S.

56. I said Wang had again spoken of alleged fear of some Chinese in U.S. to apply for departure lest they be refused. I had stated over and over again that no Chinese desiring depart U.S. need apply to anyone for permission to do so. No exit permits of any kind required to departure. As I had pointed out this morning, if our nationals were to be placed on equal basis, PRC would have to repeal its exit permit requirements. However, I had not and did not intend to make such demand, since I did not want get bogged down in discussion of subject.

57. I said Wang had referred to cases Chinese in prison in U.S. I did not know of any such case. Certainly if there were a Chinese in prison who desired return, he free communicate with Indian Embassy and Indian Embassy free investigate his case.

58. I said Wang had also again raised question of INS requirement concerning entry permits to Taiwan. I would repeat again that there is no general requirement Chinese in U.S. obtain entry permits to Taiwan. What there is, is normal and regular requirement of any country that person entering country temporarily must show that at end of stay he able go somewhere else. This not applicable to Chinese alone but to all aliens entering country. This normal requirement by consular officers issuing visas and has been done as long as I can remember. When person in country under temporary status desires extend period of stay, he must show this still holds good.

59. I said this arose regularly in regard to Chinese admitted temporarily as it does in regard any other nationality. Requirement can be satisfied in number of ways. Does not change fact when alien desires depart he free to do so and go any place of his choice. This need not be place he indicated at time of application. We do not control destination of aliens. They free depart any time for any destination of their choice.

60. I said Wang had spoken of his government making statement on September 10 announcement. It was not clear whether he referring to his statement here this morning or to public statement. I hoped it would not be latter. I was willing see facts made public, as I was sure facts would speak for themselves, but I did not see how it would help progress talks to engage in public propaganda. Such course would certainly entangle discussions.

61. I said I was sure he had noted that in spite of great public concern in U.S. over subject, statements by Secretary of State restrained in tone and confined to expression expectation announcement will be fully implemented. Secretary thus attempting discourage public debate. I thought he had been quite successful in this effort.

62. I said I had talked privately and frankly with Wang about subject. I had carefully and honestly answered all questions he had raised, and frankly given views of my government. I failed to see how bringing all this into public propaganda debate could contribute to progress.

63. Wang replied that he was very disappointed and wished express regret that discussion last meeting and again today had gone beyond item two of agenda. PRC side has no intent or desire go back to disputes and discussion that took place before issuance of September 10 agreement. It was because I had engaged discussion item one, PRC side forced do same.

64. Wang said his side always rejected any accusations by myself or by U.S. officials alleging his side violating agreement on return civilians. It has been position PRC side all along that either we would not reach agreement or, if agreement reached, it would be faithfully carried out so far as PRC side concerned. PRC has not altered this position. It can be seen PRC side is exactly performing agreement. From figures I had produced this morning, cannot be denied majority of Americans including those who committed offenses have departed.

65. Wang said we had had long argument over handling of group of Americans who breached law in China. PRC side did not enter into agreement that this group would be released by given date. This very clear. As he had indicated before, two factors will count concerning handling these Americans. One factor is behavior of individual and nature of case. Other is manner in which relations between our two countries improve. He might ask whether there has been any significant improvement in relations between two countries since issuance of September 10 announcement.

66. Wang said as to question whether there are Chinese held in US prisons, I had answered I did not know of such cases. This did not mean that there is no such case. I had said even if there were such cases, Chinese held in U.S. prisons would be free communicate with Indian Embassy and request latter make investigation in such cases. This was answer I had provided. He wanted to point out that investigation into facts such cases and ability these persons effect return are two separate matters. He wished assure me Chinese Government handling cases Americans who breach law in China in exactly this manner.

67. Wang said concerning 38 of 103 Chinese who had been prevented from returning and have not yet effected return, I had suggested these persons may have changed their mind. He considered there was no ground for such conclusion. It incredible that individuals who had dared demand return under circumstances of being subjected to threats would not wish to return after issuance agreed announcement.

68. Wang said in regard to INS requirement Chinese students obtain entry permit Taiwan within given time limit, my explanation was not convincing. He might cite case of American nationals in China to explain his point. As I was aware, Mrs. Huizer was holding Dutch passport and as rule would be considered Dutch national. However, I had requested she be returned as American national. It was good will on PRC side that case was handled as that of American national. In explaining my point I had stated every alien national should be allowed proceed destination of his choice. How would I explain matter concerning Chinese nationals in U.S.? Why did U.S. side not take steps so Chinese would obtain entry permits to China instead of insisting they obtain entry permits Taiwan. By contrasting manner in which PRC side handled case of Mrs. Huzer and manner in which U.S. side handled requirement Chinese students obtain entry permits Taiwan, clear picture emerges of unfriendly attitude U.S. side. This also open violation September 10 agreement.

69. Wang said I had spoken of necessity ensuring understanding and confidence both sides in solution problems before us. On this he was in full agreement. He regarded present talks as concrete step toward promotion understanding and confidence our two sides. After forty days discussion, we able agree on September 10 agreement, the first between us. This represented further increase confidence and understanding between our two sides.

70. Wang said if since September 10 side issues had not been raised in discussion, he was sure we would have been able on basis September 10 agreement make steady progress in settlement other matters at issue in sincere spirit. However, stalling by U.S. side in discussion item 2 and entangling over question of first item of agenda, even with accusation PRC has violated agreement, will not help obtain better understanding

71. Wang said during course discussion PRC side has firmly followed understanding between both sides to discuss matters in frank and open spirit without engaging in progpaganda. However repeated distortions appearing in press originated by U.S. official quarters alleging PRC side violating agreement have compelled PRC Government make its position clear.

72. I asked whether Wang’s government had already or was going to issue statement.

73. Wang replied he had not said his government had already made statement.

74. I asked whether it was going to do so.

75. Wang said that was correct.

76. I said that he must realize that my government would have to consider making statement in reply.

77. Wang said to his knowledge U.S. Government had already made public statements on numerous occasions.

78. I asked what statements he was referring to.

79. Wang said without enumerating all instances, he could cite Secretary Dulles’ press conference of December 6.

80. I said I did not wish to argue the point. Secretary was asked question in press conference and carefully refrained from making this public issue. As I had pointed out, American people expected imprisoned Americans would be permitted expeditiously return. By any standard they not returning expeditiously. Inevitably Secretary of State is being asked questions this regard. His answers entirely directed at reducing public controversy this point. He has consistently taken stand he hoped and expected agreement would be carried out. I did not see how exception could be taken to such statements, which in fact directed at attempting improve atmosphere surrounding talks and allaying public speculation in U.S. If PRC Government now determined bring matter into public propaganda field, difficult for me but to conclude that PRC does not share our desires for progress in talks. This cannot but adversely influence whole atmosphere that has been created.

81. I said Wang had spoken of September 10 announcement as furthering understanding and confidence between us. That had been exactly my hope. However, it is not words of announcement and appearance of agreement that further understanding, but carrying out of announcement. It was only because of my tremendous interest in furthering progress that I had discussed matters the way I had. I regretted that matter was going to enter propaganda field, which could not but inhibit discussion of subject here.

82. I said I regretted that Wang had again spoken of state of our relations as factor in determining release of Americans. I had previously given my views on this and the inevitable interpretation that must be placed upon it. Improvement of relations is two way street. I had tried since beginning of talks point out as clearly as I could relationship between improvement of relations and views of American people concerning continued imprisonment of Americans. This not subject to arbitrary control of U.S. Government or anyone in U.S. Government. But is basic fact that must be taken into consideration in discussing our relations. I would not be honest and would not be doing service to our relations if I did not point this out frankly.

83. I said there were only two other small items. I had previously tried to make clear that group of 103 Chinese he had referred to were not persons who had demanded return, but were people who may or may not have desired to return against whom restraining orders were issued.

84. I said I failed to see any relationship between Mrs. Huizer and my explanation of immigration laws concerning temporary visitors. I was sure he did not mean to imply that if she had been Dutch subject she would not have been permitted leave.

85. I said concerning requirement of immigration law regarding temporary visitors, his country and every other country must have similar regulations. PRC certainly did not admit foreigners on temporary visits unless they able go somewhere else at end of visit. Various countries may administer such measures in various ways. As I had pointed out, U.S. requirement can be satisfied in various ways. Certainly it did not interfere with ability Chinese in U.S. proceed PRC if they decided to do so. Therefore, requirement had no relation to implementation agreed announcement.

86. Wang said he still did not agree to my explanation of INS requirement for Chinese in U.S. obtain entry permits Taiwan. Chinese students in U.S. all came from mainland of China. What right did U.S. Government have compel these students proceed to Taiwan? He had referred to case of Mrs. Huizer because PRC had regarded her as Dutch subject. I had regarded her as American national. Citation of Mrs. Huizer was designed show how Chinese Government has been handling problems in friendly spirit. Whereas U.S. side handling problems of Chinese in U.S. in unfriendly spirit.

87. Wang said I had said if Mrs. Huizer was Dutch, would PRC have prevented her departure. He could only conclude that it is a deliberate distortion for U.S. side to state matter in this manner.

88. Wang said as to need for establishing friendly atmosphere around talks, this was always objective of PRC side. But in order establish friendly atmosphere both sides must make common effort. It would be illusion for one side to insist on making charges while it wants other side keep silent. Statement PRC side is going to make has been compelled by U.S. propaganda.

89. I asked whether Wang could give me copy of statement.

90. Wang replied he did not now have a copy.

91. I said I wished again to deny emphatically that any Chinese in U.S. are being required to proceed to Taiwan.

92. Wang said this denial would have practical effect only after INS repealed its requirement on Chinese students.

93. I said there was no INS requirement that any Chinese student go to Taiwan.

94. Wang said requirement compelling students make such application is nothing but forcing them to proceed to Taiwan.

95. I said students could satisfy requirement in any number of ways. Wang must be aware that all Chinese who entered U.S. in recent years entered under Government of Republic of China passports. If those passports have expired, it is perfectly natural for these people to obtain renewal of their passports. However, whether they fulfill requirement that way or not, nothing compels them go to Taiwan.

96. Wang said as he had pointed out he could not regard this measure as justifiable.

97. I said I had nothing further on this subject. However, I was seriously disturbed over PRC side placing our talks on this subject into propaganda field. In view of action his government and in view of approaching holiday season for both of us, I wondered whether it would be preferable have few weeks interval before next meeting. Action of his government is inevitably going to entangle two items our agenda and our discussion. Perhaps if we were not to meet for a short period it might reduce public speculation and get us back to situation where we could make progress. I was throwing this suggestion out as sincere effort try reduce impact action his government and in hope it will enable us make further progress. Would appreciate his views.

98. Wang said what period of time did I have in mind in proposing a short recess.

99. I said we might meet again either on 5th or 12th January.

100. Wang said there are two aspects to question. According to what I had said, I desired recess and I was trying justify this recess by alleged effect of action his government was going to take. If this was case, he could not agree to recess because it would not reconcile with spirit of making efforts find common ground between us. However, if recess proposal was motivated merely by consideration of holidays, he would consider suggestion and reply later.

101. I said I did not feel move his government will be helpful finding common ground between us. It was one of reasons leading me to suggest recess. However I did not desire to press point.

102. Wang said as I had stated, he would not agree to recess on first grounds, relating to action his government. If I insisted on recess on those grounds his side compelled make further statement to clarify its position. However, if second reason were in mind, if motive were purely the approaching holidays, then he would consider matter and give reply later.

103. I said my specific suggestion was for recess until January 12. If he preferred some other period I would consider it. I was not trying to be arbitrary.

104. Wang said he would reply after consideration. I asked when that would be and whether before December 22. He replied he couldn’t say but would make it as soon as possible. In reply to my query as to what we would say to press he suggested we inform press next meeting would be December 22, the usual date. In case of change we would announce it later to press.

105. I pointed out I was leaving for Prague Friday and would appreciate if possible an answer before I left. He said he would try but could not promise.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/12–1555. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.