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

44. Telegram 354 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 8, 1955, 6 p.m.

354. From Johnson.

At fourth meeting August 8 10 am Wang began referring my statement restraining orders previously placed by US Government on Chinese now all rescinded and that foreign nationals in US including Chinese could leave without applying for permission. Wang said he welcomed my statement but added he must frankly point out it not altogether consistent with actual situation prevailing to date. Actual situation is that although US Government has rescinded departure restrictions on number of Chinese students who applied to leave long ago, Chinese students are still subjected all sorts of obstructions and many prevented from leaving up to present. All Chinese nationals who want to leave subjected to interrogation by Immigration Service and FBI and forced express their political opinions. Some even detained for this reason. Many others for fear of interrogation do not apply to leave and many who previously applied have reconsidered for same reason. Many Chinese nationals who applied to leave long ago up to present unable depart.

An example this is case Dr. Tsien who went US 1934 to study aeronautics. After graduation 1938 was engaged in teaching at California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Now holds position at Cal Tech. Is one of few authorities on rockets in US. When Dr Tsien was leaving US August 1950 US Secret Service seized his baggage on charge contained classified material. August 23 he further notified not to depart and that investigation his activities pending. September 7 arrested by Immigration Service and not released until put up $15,000 bail Sept 23. Later Dean of Cal Tech stated Dr. Tsien not carrying classified material of US Government but only his own research work and published books. Returned students in 1955 reported Tsien’s movements restricted to county of residence. In letter June 15, 1955 to Vice Chairman People’s Republic Dr. Tsien restated his anxiety to return and appealed for assistance.

Wang continued he could cite further evidence from American newspapers. UP reported September 23, 1953 indicating no evidence discovered connecting Dr. Tsien with Communists. However he unable return to his country and awaiting trial in US. On March 6, 1953 New York Times stated Dr. Tsien had been ordered deported to China but that at same time had received orders preventing him from leaving US. Times added this contradictory situation revealed by Chief of District Immigration Los Angeles.

Case of Dr. Tsien vividly explains how many Chinese doctors in US desire return and unable to do so. Up to present Dr. Tsien’s movements still restricted to county of residence. Only charge against him is desire return to motherland and reunite with family. This utterly unreasonable situation suffices to show appropriate way must be found to assure return of nationals.

Wang referred my statement August 4 that no general deadline existing on departure individuals from US and those required leave only those who no longer held student status. Wang declared even those no longer students should not be subjected to unreasonable departure time limit causing them difficulty. Especially unreasonable aspect is that these people given unreasonably short time. If cannot leave within limit suffer “torture” of Immigration Service procedure including interrogation, payment of bail, arrest and other actions which cause pressures on their minds. At same time they notified can spare selves such tortures if they apply for permanent residence. This means they compelled remain US against their will.

Wang then referred my statement that even if alien had applied for and was granted permanent residence he still could proceed to any place of his choice at any time. Wang said this is “matter of course”. Whether Chinese national applied under immigration laws or Refugee Relief Act still should be able to go to any place of his choice without stating reason therefor. In order that those Chinese nationals compelled to apply for permanent residence under Refugee Relief Act or other regulations not be prevented from leaving in future is necessary find appropriate way give them assurance.

Wang said he had checked list of 76 given him last meeting and found 44 not yet returned China. Handed me list these names for investigation. Referring to Department’s April 2, 1955 press release concerning rescinding restraining orders these students he pointed out reference made there to number of cases still under review. Wang said he would also like to know names these people. On basis statements I had made in course talks his government believed return these people should not be subjected any obstruction. Question of return civilians both sides not only involved return those who had applied to leave, but also involved return all civilians. Those who may want return any time in future should also be allowed to go. That is why he had given me list of all American nationals in China for our convenience. He expressed view his government also entitled request US make reciprocal arrangement by offering him list all Chinese nationals, including students. Said this was not beyond terms of reference but was precisely what he and I should be dealing with.

Wang continued that many Chinese nationals US who have expressed inherent desire return motherland treated as political problems. As result they restricted for long time from departing and subjected all kinds of pressure such as interrogation procedure and time limit for departure. Obstructions still prevail. Many Chinese nationals have apprehensions regarding applying to leave. State Dept’s April 2, 1955 press statement acknowledged some Chinese students may refrain from applying to Immigration Service for permission to depart for fear of being refused. “If it can be said there is contrast between situation Chinese nationals in US and American nationals in China this is apparently great contrast”.

From time of founding Chinese People’s Republic to date 1523 Americans left China only 87 remain. Law-abiding American nationals in China can leave any time providing make reasonable arrangement for unsettled civil cases. However many law-abiding Chinese nationals in US dare not apply for permission depart. Furthermore as result of prohibition against remittance money by families of Chinese nationals to them many such nationals no means obtaining travel funds. Therefore it is necessary both China and US should entrust to 3rd country of own choice care of affairs nationals in other, in first place, affair of their return. Arrangements should be based on equality and mutual benefit. This would be reasonable solution to problem of return of civilians of both sides.

With regard to supplementary list five persons given him last meeting, Wang said Bradshaw two Romanoffs and Walsh already included in list Americans given US. Regarding Mrs. Huizer he understood she wife of Dutch national. According his information she was former American but in December 1951 on expiration her American passport she replaced it with Dutch passport. Situation is she married to Dutch national and is now Dutch subject holding Dutch passport. Dutch Charge has repeatedly claimed she is Dutch national and Chinese Government respects claim of Dutch.

I told Wang I would like make few remarks of preliminary nature on what he had said. In first place throughout his remarks he had repeatedly referred to matter of Chinese in US applying for permission to leave. I told him I might not have expressed myself sufficiently clearly at last meeting but I had tried to explain that in US alien ordinarily does not need to make application to leave. We have no such thing as exit permit. In effect if alien wants to leave US he simply buys boat tickets and leaves.

It is for this reason restraining orders had to be issued against some students in past. As I had said repeatedly, these orders now lifted. To best my knowledge no Chinese now being prevented from leaving US for China. Referring case of Dr. Tsien I said statement that US not preventing any Chinese from leaving country also applied to him. If he still desires proceed China US would not prevent. I said most of what Wang said regarding him was past history which it would not be fruitful to go into. I pointed out Wang had referred to many news articles and I suggested that they not be taken as too authoritative since we had both seen recently that the press frequently makes mistakes. I added I would want point out that question whether Tsien tried violate US espionage laws by attempting take with him US classified documents is of course question of fact. Whether he did or did not, I stated I could not refrain from contrasting fact he still free with status our citizens in China charged with similar offenses. However said I did not want to debate his case but only repeat my original statement that if he wants to go he can.

I said in half-serious tone it seemed that Wang on one hand complained we prevented people from leaving and on other that they must leave too quickly. Said he had referred to cases of some who may wish to apply under Refugee Relief Act for permanent residence and that he had asked in future such persons should be permitted to leave if desire to do so. I said as I had told him before they can do so. Regarding question forcing people leave before they ready, I repeated each case sympathetically considered on own merits and if extension justified Immigration Service would grant. No one forced to apply for permanent residence. This purely voluntary. Immigration Service merely points out if persons do not apply they no longer entitled to status as students when have ceased to be students.

Referring to Wang’s statement concerning interrogating people on their political opinions, I said this becomes pertinent only if person applies for permanent residence. It is necessary under our law to inquire into a person’s loyalties to determine whether such person entitled permanent residence. It is normal and natural procedure applied to all aliens.

Referring to 44 names given by Wang I said I wished point out again original 76 were those against whom restraining order lifted. Individuals were informed orders lifted and they free to depart. This did not mean they actually left. It is entirely possible some still in US; I did not know. If they are it is of own free will and their departure not being prevented. Some of these might have departed US for other places. We have no way of knowing. Remaining cases referred to in announcement that restraining orders on 76 lifted have now been completed and no Chinese now being prevented leaving US including Dr. Tsien. I told Wang Dept’s April 2 press release dealt primarily with question Chinese students who apply to US Government for help in paying transportation to China. As I pointed out US Government had paid or assisted in paying travel of hundreds of those who returned China. That announcement mentioned lifting of restraining orders against 76 Chinese students in context of reassuring Chinese in US desiring obtain transportation from US Government and against whom restraining orders had been issued that they need have no hesitation make application.

I expressed appreciation for receipt information on Mrs. Huizer, adding that Wang undoubtedly familiar, like all persons in diplomatic service, with matter of dual nationality.

I said that while our nationality laws very complicated, in general, since 1922 any American woman marrying alien retains nationality under our law. In many cases under law of husband’s country she may also have acquired his nationality. She sometimes will apply for passport of husband’s nationality and sometimes for American passport. Under our law this does not affect fact that by our law she is American citizen. This is Mrs. Huizer’s case and we desire extend protection to her as American national even though she also may have Dutch passport.

Wang replied that as previously stated he had repeatedly indicated his pleasure at learning that US Government had rescinded restrictions on Chinese nationals in US. However according his info actual state of affairs was at variance with what I had said. He desired clarify possible misunderstanding my part his government’s position regarding Chinese in US. It was not that his government dissatisfied in past because Chinese students under restrictions and now dissatisfied again because they compelled leave too fast. Dissatisfaction is based on fact that they should have been able return and had not yet returned.

For long period US Government restricted Chinese. Now that restrictions rescinded Chinese nationals notified to leave before certain date which left them following alternatives: (1) deportation procedure if failed leave before deadline; (2) apply for permanent residence if wanted avoid difficulties of alternative (1). Wang said he cited case Dr. Tsien because well known, but this only one example. His appeal for help in letter June 15 shows he not free to leave at that time. Furthermore Chinese nationals faced with series of difficulties such as financial visa booking tickets etc. All these factors affect their freedom to depart. May be possible under these conditions some dare not express desire depart. May be cases of people who express desire but may change mind for one reason or another. All these practical difficulties prevent departure. Wang went on to say that all this serves explain why even though I had repeatedly stated Chinese free to leave any time they still faced many difficulties. Therefore he hoped way could be found beneficial to both sides such as formula of 3rd country.

Regarding case Mrs. Huizer Chinese Government not in position determine whether she is Dutch or American. He only knew she married to Dutchman and held Dutch passport. If US and Dutch could agree on status Chinese Government would not oppose. Wang concluded he was only trying clarify few points and did not desire debate.

I told Wang that there was nothing we could agree with Dutch about concerning Mrs. Huizer since according to laws of both countries she was both (repeat both) Dutch and American. Wang interjected in humorous vein that if husband cooperated with wife problem could be settled.

Then talking from prepared statement I referred to Wang’s first proposal made August second and said as previously stated I felt this goes beyond agreed scope present discussion and I had also at that time mentioned practical difficulties. I now added it is not policy US Government make such information available any other government. Therefore it not possible agree Wang’s proposal.

With regard Wang’s fourth proposal I stated I believed it went somewhat beyond first agreed item of agenda. However I told Wang US Government considering arrangement which would be within agreed scope present discussions and fully meet objectives with respect to civilians both countries envisaged by two governments in July 25 statement.

Told Wang seemed to me all that is required carry out this purpose is for each of our governments take whatever steps necessary permit return of civilians who desire do so. As I had explained to him my government has already taken all necessary steps. If Wang’s government would do same entire problem would be quickly resolved.

Nevertheless my government was giving consideration to following arrangement:

Indian Embassy Washington could receive requests from any Chinese civilian in US who felt he being prevented from leaving. Indian Emb could investigate case sending officer to interview person if it desired and if Embassy concluded complaint justified could report facts to Dept with request for whatever action Emb considered appropriate. Emb could also act as channel for transmission travel funds and otherwise extend to individuals appropriate assistance. Both my government and Indian Embassy would give full publicity. British Embassy in China would perform same services for American nationals there, Chinese Government agreeing to give and permit publicity in same manner as arranged in US.

I then continued I had been giving particular thought to Wang statement last meeting regarding necessity any solution reached being beneficial to both parties. Said I thoroughly agreed this view but failed to see how it possible to describe situation at present stage of discussions as unfair to Chinese Government or people. Added if I desired to do so could dwell at some length on unfairness present situation to Americans in China but I did not believe it useful engage fruitless debate this subject but rather look at present practical situation.

I said at second meeting Wang had asked for solution to question of restrictions on return to China of Chinese nationals in US. I said I immediately and promptly replied under full authority my government no Chinese being prevented from leaving US. At last meeting I carefully and frankly explained nature of restrictions formerly placed on departure some Chinese students and explained these now entirely removed. I reiterated to Wang that US Government not now preventing departure any Chinese from US. Said it was difficult for me to see how I could be more explicit or more fully meet request Wang had made. I said I had tried make it clear that US Government expects all its nationals in China desiring to return to US will be able promptly to do so and that Wang’s government should take whatever measures necessary bring about this result. I concluded stating it would greatly facilitate and expedite our discussions if Wang could shortly give me explicit info regarding measures along this line which I understood were being considered by his government. I emphasized again that my government had taken all necessary steps to meet Wang’s requirements and there were no exceptions not even case of Dr. Tsien to my assurance that all Chinese free to leave US.

Wang said noted my statement. Said he had restated own position concerning his original proposals 1, 2 and 3, declaring he agreed with me it was necessary for both sides to make reciprocal or corresponding arrangements for return of nationals which would bring a solution to this problem. He expressed regret I had not agreed his first proposal. Said on his part he had already given me complete list all Americans in China which very convenient for our use. Therefore Wang added which very reasonable his side require similar action from US and would appreciate it if US could reconsider its position on first proposal. Regarding arrangement I had suggested on the 4th proposal he reserved comments until next meeting which Wang proposed be August 10, 10 a.m.

I then proposed press release to which Wang agreed as reported my tel 347.

Atmosphere continues easy and informal.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–855. Confidential.