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

455. Telegram 1402 from Geneva¹

Geneva, January 19, 1956, 8 p.m.

1402. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 33d meeting today with visibly hastily drawn prepared statement saying that at our last meeting he already made some remarks on my proposed amendments to draft announcement. This morning he going make further comments.

2. Wang said at last meeting I stated that China and US confront each other with policies that in conflict but it need not lead to hostilities. If so, solution to disputes should be brought about through negotiation and that exactly specified in their draft. If however it intention US side in making announcement to maintain status quo of occupation Taiwan then as he had long ago pointed out his side would absolutely not agree.

3. He said I had repeatedly stated China not required to renounce policies she has laid down. However, policy of China is exactly to liberate Taiwan. My draft requires them to recognize right of US to individual collective self defense in Taiwan area. That aims to require his side recognize US-Chiang treaty as well as recognize US occupation Taiwan.

4. Wang said furthermore my draft attempted confuse exclusively internal issue of China with international disputes between China US. This would require his side give up legal sovereign right over Taiwan. As he had long pointed out this what his side absolutely will not do.

5. Wang said I had stated use of force does not accord with accepted standards of international conduct. However it exactly US which using force and threat against China in Taiwan area.

6. Wang said, in spite this his side still maintains that disputes between China US be settled through negotiations. As to question in which manner China will settle internal issues, as he had pointed out long ago, that exclusively matter Chinese internal affairs and permits no foreign country’s interference.

7. Wang said again I had stated that issuance agreed announcement does not involve any third parties. However in draft put forward by me I raised question of so-called individual collective self defense in Taiwan area. That exactly an attempt to bring Chiang clique into matter.

8. Wang said thus it evident that amended draft put forward by me Jan 12 and my original draft Nov 10 contain practically no difference and therefore it not acceptable.

9. Wang said my side on one hand suggested inside conference room that announcement on renunciation force be issued. However on other hand over an extended period US side not willing arrive at agreement this question. This cannot but raise question as to sincerity of professed desire settle issues between China US.

10. Wang said furthermore he would like point out in our previous meetings I stated that talks between us must not be held under threat of force. Yet US Secretary State Mr. Dulles had been clamoring recently for atomic war against China. Was this not outright threat?

11. Wang said if Mr. Dulles thinks Chinese people can be intimidated by threats and that Chinese people can be forced give up their sovereign rights this entirely wishful thinking.

12. Wang said it is well to recall that Korean armistice, restoration peace in Indochina as well as withdrawal from Tachen Islands, all these events have sufficiently demonstrated fact that forces of world people for peace and justice cannot be stopped, whereas policy of position of strength and atomic blackmail doomed failure.

13. Wang said recent warlike utterances of Secretary not only provoked greatest indignation on part Chinese people but also condemned by people of other countries including peace loving people in US. Could these utterances be reconciled with purposes present talks? Could these utterances be reconciled with further desire for progress?

14. Wang said all these events cannot but raise question as to whether U.S. has genuine sincerity to settle peacefully issues and disputes between China and U.S.

15. I replied extemporaneously saying Wang had again this morning spoken of sincerity. He had made remarks concerning Secretary of State which entirely uncalled for. I believed that record of U.S. in world affairs as well as record in these talks speaks for itself.

16. I said U.S. has demonstrated not just in words but in actions its devotion to cause of peace. It has also demonstrated not just in words but in actions its devotion to supporting freedom and independence of all peoples.

17. I said U.S. has demonstrated not only by words but by actions its complete lack any aggressive intent whatsoever not only towards other countries but also towards Wang’s country.

18. I said Wang had mentioned Korea. I was sure there is not in history of world any greater example of self-restraint and lack aggressive intention towards other people than that demonstrated by U.S. in Korean hostilities. Actions of forces under control of Wang’s government crossing into Korea and attacking U.S. and other forces there operating under authority U.N. gave every moral and legal justification for those U.N. forces defend themselves by attacking bases in his country from which Chinese forces were supported.

19. I said U.N. forces restrained themselves from taking that action because of great desire, in spite actions Wang’s government, not to spread war. For month upon weary month Chinese representatives refused agree any reasonable armistice that would stop hostilities. Eventually during period that Mr. Dulles was Secretary State, armistice was finally concluded.

20. I said every agreement or collective defense arrangement U.S. has entered into around world including Far Fast very specifically and clearly limited to self defense, self defense not only of selves but collective self-defense with other like-minded countries which fear aggression.

21. I said President of U.S. and Secretary State have time and again expressed overwhelming sentiment of American people in stating U.S. will never attack anyone. To state that Secretary is “clamoring for atomic war” is gross libel which I most strongly resented.

22. I said I well aware of public statements of Secretary. There was nothing Secretary had ever said in any way that could possibly be interpreted in that fashion. To do so was grossest type misrepresentation.

23. I said as far as devotion to peace and desire avoid war is concerned and with respect these talks I was satisfied facts are equally clear. As I had reviewed with him at last meeting and as he had again recognized in his statement this morning, it was U.S. which proposed we make it clear we were determined settle disputes through peaceful means and not resort war.

24. I said there is vast difference between proposing negotiate with overhanging threat of attack in background and proposal definitively to remove threat of war and then seek peaceful means resolving our disputes.

25. I said Wang had consistently in these talks and his government had in its public statement issued yesterday ignored plain statement I made in my original proposal October 8. I had made it clear in that statement, had made it clear in all statements I ever made in these meetings, had made it clear in draft November 10, that it was not suggested that Wang’s government renounce in any way peaceful pursuit policy objectives which it believed it legitimately entitled achieve. Those not just idle words. I had attempted already carry out that intent. It was stated very specifically in November 10 draft, but in order meet Wang’s objections to that draft, I tried another formula in amendments which I suggested to his draft of December 1.

26. I said at our last meeting I had offered consider any alternative formulation he might have in mind. I certainly didn’t see how it possible for me be any more reasonable this regard.

27. I said there are two things that I had considered essential. One is that we make it clear that there no concealed reservations with regard Taiwan area. I had welcomed his statement last meeting that he willing consider inclusion of words that would make it clear Taiwan area included in scope any declaration we made. This seemed to me be very encouraging step towards final agreement.

28. I said that seemed to me leave only one obstacle. That obstacle did not seem be matter of substance but rather matter of finding words express substance. I had reference to matter of individual collective self defense.

29. I said we had both in these meetings expressed concurrence with this as principle. I had clearly expressed to Wang my intent that in stating principle, it should not prejudice his position with re nature our dispute in Taiwan area. I honestly felt I had accomplished that purpose in suggested amendments I proposed at last meeting. However I had said if he felt differently I was willing consider other suggestions he might have that regard.

30. I said having agreed on substance it certainly seemed to me not unreasonable and not beyond ingenuity of two of us to find words express that substance.

31. I said it had never occurred to me that this principle so long recognized in international law, embodied in U.N. Charter and generally accepted throughout world could be objectionable anyone. It never occurred me that any country which genuinely concerned with own sovereignty and willing respect that of other countries would be opposed to it.

32. I said it hard to see how any country would desire go on public record as admitting its policies were inconsistent with legitimate exercise by other countries of right self defense.

33. I said I repeated that in stating this it never had been and still was not my intention demand that his government abandon any of its claims or its views or its right to peaceful pursuit its policies, no matter how strongly I might disagree with some of those policies.

34. I said however as our negotiations upon this subject had developed, and particularly in light of public statement made by Wang’s government yesterday, it appeared that intent of his government was to demand that in negotiating this statement my government renounce its legitimate right of individual collective self defense. I wanted make it perfectly plain that my government cannot and will not under any circumstances agree to do this.

35. At this point, 11 a.m., Wang consulted at some length with his interpreter. Also messenger brought in three-page Chinese letter which Wang glanced at briefly before proceeding.

36. Wang said this morning he had specifically pointed out negotiations between us should be aimed at bringing about peaceful solution of dispute between us in Taiwan area and relaxation tension in Far East. Therefore, he held negotiations should not be held under overhanging threat of force. As he had pointed out this morning, statement by Secretary contained flagrant threats against his side, and it seemed to him that such threatening utterances on part of Secretary of State of US would not rpt not bring people of US any good. Nor would these statements raise prestige of American people.

37. Wang said I had spoken much about US peaceful intentions in world. However, if US genuinely willing, not by words but by action, to demonstrate its peaceful intent, it was capable making great contribution to world peace. Today, people of world capable making own judgements, which made not on basis words but actions demonstrated. From development of events in field of disarmament, from establishment of military bases around world, from open intervention in internal affairs Korea, and armed intervention in Taiwan, people of world able judge by whom peace being breached, and that all these events run against international law and justice.

38. Wang said, in mentioning these past events he had no interest go into debate with me, for I well knew we could hold long debates without coming to any useful conclusion. He wished only make specific mention events in Korea and Taiwan. He convinced history would pass judgement as to which side had engaged in intervention in domestic affairs of others, as well as which engaged in armed aggression. People of world will make own judgements.

39. Wang said that I had referred to drafting of announcement renouncing use force and setting forth principle of peaceful settlement of disputes. He was sure I well aware their efforts this direction, that is, that they were striving in this direction to bring about agreement. On question of an agreed announcement on renunciation of force, their side had repeatedly made concessions. If both sides followed principles international law and both shared same desire for peace, hard for him see why latest draft Chinese side unacceptable.

40. Wang said this morning I had again stated US had no intent demand Chinese side renounce its legitimate rights, or abandon its views, or renounce pursuit its policies. However, in next instant I had again raised question of US right of self defense in Taiwan area and had stated US would not renounce its claims to individual and collective self-defense in Taiwan area. This latest statement practically refutes all my other statements and renders them meaningless.

41. Wang said it was their view that both sides must make equal efforts come to agreement. Chinese side has made such efforts but US has not. Therefore, difference between two of us not one of specific formulation or of choice of words, but one of substance. If US insisted on including phrase concerning individual and collective self defense in draft agreed announcement, he did not see how we could reach any agreement. This outcome was not Chinese desire or hope.

42. I responded that, first, Wang insisting on belaboring supposed question of statements by Secretary of State. I would like specifically ask what statement or statements?

43. Wang said this was statement now known everywhere and he referring to statement appeared Life magazine.

44. I said I wondered whether or not Wang along with many others might not be confusing official and authorized statements of Secretary of State with opinions and views issued on own responsibility by writer of magazine articles. I might add that I had read article in entirety and could find no statement therein by Secretary of State that could remotely support statements Wang made here this morning.

45. Wang said talks between two of us should be aimed at settling peacefully dispute between our two countries instead of at creating tensions. Peaceful settlement of dispute between two countries would not only bring about relaxation tensions in world but would contribute to cause of peace in world. Hard for them understand why US on one hand invited them discuss making joint announcement on renunciation force, while on other hand US SecState revealed that on three occasions US had been on verge of unleashing atomic war against China. Suppose these disclosures had been made by someone else—Senator Knowland or Mr. McCarthy—Chinese could omit ref to them in these talks. However, they noted these statements being made by personality in charge and guidance of US foreign policy, and those statements certainly caused alarm part of Chinese. They could not help raising question as to whether US foreign policy, under guidance Mr. Dulles, advocated negotiations between two sides or advocated use of atomic bombs against China. He only wanted make it plain and clear Chinese people were not to be frightened by this sort of talk.

46. Wang said, in particular they thought that at time while Sino-American talks were in progress, these utterances would serve no useful purpose. And he wanted to point out also that he who plays with fire is one who gets burnt in the end.

47. I said I had seen no statement by Secretary in Life article or elsewhere, or ever under any circumstances anywhere, speaking of unleashing an atomic war on China or on any other country. I had however seen statements referring to determination of US to resist, by war if necessary, aggression unleashed by others.

48. Wang said he had made clear his views on this situation and had nothing further to add.

49. I said, turning to his remarks concerning our draft, he had apparently slightly misunderstood or misinterpreted statement I had made this morning. What I was speaking of concerning embodiment in any declaration or statement on individual and collective self defense, was that it be clearly embodied as a principle. What I had said was that in light of history these negotiations and particularly public statement issued by Chinese Govt yesterday, they were in effect demanding that US renounce this principle. I had said this was what we would not do. In this, they were asking us to do something that we had not asked them to do.

50. Wang said he had made their position crystal clear in previous meetings as well as today on question of draft announcement. As he had said, he would welcome any constructive proposal or amendment which I willing present.

51. I said I had also made my position clear. Amendments which I had suggested to their Dec 1 draft, in spite of their importance, did not change draft’s essential nature. I had incorporated them in form such that it was difficult for me to see why they should not have been entirely acceptable. I had offered consider any alternative formulations that would accomplish same purpose. I was disappointed that this morning he persisted in rejecting what I had offered without making any constructive suggestions of his own. I did not see how I could go any further.

52. Wang said I could see that they had already made repeated efforts on question of draft announcement. I would recall that in their original proposal they proposed to include certain specific stipulations of UN Charter as well as para concerning holding conference Foreign Ministers. However, in view our reluctance accept that draft and in spite fact stipulations UN Charter could be in no way objected to, subsequently in interest formulating draft meeting views both sides, Chinese side put forward Dec 1 draft, in which paras concerning UN Charter and convening Foreign Minister conference were withdrawn.

53. Wang said, however withdrawal of two paras did not mean paras themselves were objectionable or that they not proper for inclusion in draft. Withdrawal two paras from original draft did not mean they were not qualified for inclusion, but represented effort their part formulate an acceptable form and effort their part to work for making such an announcement and not for its hindrance. Therefore, hard for him see why I not willing accept concrete proposal he put forth last meeting: to withdraw phrase concerning individual and collective self defense from amendment to draft I had put forward at last meeting.

54. I said it should be clear to him and his government that, from manner in which this question of individual and collective self defense had been handled by him in these meetings as well as in public statement made by govt., any failure to mention this in any draft we might issue would inevitably be represented as renunciation on part of US of its legitimate rights of self defense. It should be equally clear that this was demand which it entirely impossible for US accept.

55. Wang said wanted make clear position his government this regard. That was, they would not accept any draft which included phrase dealing with so called right to individual and collective self defense in Taiwan area. If they did accept such phrase, would be tantamount recognition on their part of occupation of Taiwan by US. This why this (rpt this) phrase absolutely unacceptable to them.

56. I said I had nothing further on this. Did he have anything else?

57. Wang said, with reference to seven Chinese mentioned his previous letter to me, as well as list of three handed me last meeting, wondered if I had any information? He had further list of four Chinese in US who want return and who either been prevented or who have not been heard from for long time by families. Would like to hand me list (names in fol tel) and requested my govt investigate. Should note that in list had entered full details concerning them. He only wanted say that Chinese not satisfied with situation encountered these persons and fact they not able return.

58. I asked what was his allegation concerning these persons? Was it that they wanted return but were being prevented?

59. Wang said families of some have not heard from them for long period, others desire return but unable do so.

60. I asked if allegation was they obstructed?

61. Wang said yes.

62. I said if they felt they encountering obstruction they could freely contact Indian Embassy. Is allegation that they being prevented communicate Indian Embassy?

63. Wang said there were various circumstances. Some these people not informed concerning agreed announcement and therefore not informed of specific measures in agreed announcement and had no knowledge about communication with Indian Embassy.

64. I said it not credible to me that any Chinese in US who decided return had not heard of agreed announcement. I had outlined to him at time issuance of agreed announcement exceptional measures taken to bring it to attention of every Chinese in US. Since that time, as I had mentioned previous meeting, 70,000 copies full text posted in each of 36,000 post offices in US. Inevitable that it would be brought their attention some manner. Also like mention, if he had not noticed, press release by Dept. of Dec 18 (I later corrected date to 17th) which stated: “If anyone knows of any Chinese who wishes to leave or who claims he is being prevented, he should communicate at once with the Dept of State or the Indian Embassy in Washington, which the US has agreed may render assistance”. If there were in fact any obstruction departure any these people, reasonable that at least one case would have been brought attention Indian Embassy. He often here and statement his government yesterday continually referred to applying permission depart. I had over and over again explained him, and it was confirmable by Indian Embassy and any one else, that Chinese wishing depart need not apply to anyone.

65. I said if we were going bog discussions down here with case every Chinese in US who for one reason or another does not exercise his right to write person his country, did not seem to me we could get anywhere.

66. I said it should be most reassuring him that thus far Indian Embassy has brought no case to attention Dept concerning obstruction to departure of Chinese. I would be very happy and people my country would be much gratified if that were situation regarding US citizens in China.

67. I said I perfectly aware number Americans in his country with no desire return US. This entirely matter decision and right of individuals. I had not made any issue these cases. My government nor I here had not stated these pressured, terrorized, or in any other way prevented leaving, although this might be case. However, I making no such charge. I had tried keep discussions within terms agreed announcement of Sept 10. If I had evidence any these people being prevented in their desire depart, I would take it up here. However, my govt and I myself have no desire create hypothetical issues for sake propaganda or make exaggerated charges for public consumption. I carefully trying avoid place this type obstacle in way improvement relations and progress peaceful settlement our disputes.

68. I said my govt continues increasingly concerned fate thirteen Americans in prison who indisputably fall within category specifically covered agreed announcement. This not propaganda issue with us in any sense. It question validity and usefulness of any agreements between us. These thirteen certainly desire return. They clearly being prevented from doing so. Their freedom communicate UK Charge definitely been placed under limitations. They should be promptly expeditiously allowed exercise right return.

69. Wang said after announcement our agreement although US claimed it made wide publication concerning agreement, there still many people who not informed about agreement. Furthermore, in view fact that US had failed submit list of Chinese in US, Indian Embassy had no means inform these people.

70. Wang said in addition many Chinese students in US have written home their families complaining of many difficulties and obstacles they encountering.

71. Wang said most conspicuous case is that of Liu Yung-ming. Liu innocent person who never committed any offenses against US yet he had been confined in mental hospital long time. Even after agreed announcement Sept 10 US Govt failed take any measures regarding him. It only after Wang had written letter to me that Liu allowed return.

72. Wang said as he stated at last meeting although he welcomed measures taken effect Liu’s return, he entirely dissatisfied with treatment Liu subjected to for such long time.

73. Wang said furthermore I had failed give them precise information concerning any Chinese in US prisons. They had seen no measures taken by US Govt to remove requirement for Chinese in US secure entry permits for Taiwan. All these things indicated hindrances in way of return of Chinese in US.

74. Wang said he hoped I would make investigation into situation these people whose names he gave me in his letters as well as lists he gave me at last meeting and at today’s meeting. He hoped measures would be taken assisting them return.

75. Wang said he would like point out names these people were not included in list I gave them of Chinese who desire return. He wished express his dissatisfaction over this fact.

76. I replied that with regard Liu, I simply wanted point out no action ever taken by US Govt prevent his departure. Liu was and still is sick man. He hospitalized many years at public expense in US. Only member of family who apparently ever took trouble correspond with hospital was Liu’s father.

77. I said if Wang would refer to full record correspondence between father and hospital he would note that father asked that Liu’s treatment be continued.

78. I said soon as word received that Liu’s wife did not desire have treatment continued but wanted him return, and that he was willing return, although Liu not fully recovered arrangements made for him depart. There certainly no legitimate grounds for complaint regarding his treatment. In fact it would seem to me quite opposite.

79. Wang said superintendent of hospital in which Liu kept wrote letter which fully proved that Liu could have left hospital long ago. Liu also wanted return. His family always wanted him return. However, he not able do so for long time. Question of Liu and his situation quite clear.

80. I said neither Wang nor myself were psychiatrists, but there certainly difference between ability to travel, which apparently was Liu’s condition in 1950, and being cured of illness. Certainly neither hospital or any other official agency in US would have any interest in treatment of person mentally ill other than pure humanitarian.

81. Wang said he thought doctor in this hospital was one who capable making just statement regarding condition Liu.

82. I said I would think so too and doctor says Liu still not cured.

83. Wang said but they had letter written by superintendent hospital stating Liu was fit to leave hospital long ago.

84. I said, that is, fit to travel.

85. Wang said yes.

86. I said I only wanted to say before leaving that I was very disappointed to note that in spite discussion last meeting Wang’s govt saw fit issue statement with regard talks. It difficult for me see how this could help us make progress. As I said at last meeting, I did not see how public airing our differences helped towards solution problems. It only aggravates them.

87. I said I wondered if this indicated whether his government still intrested in continuing these talks upon basis which I suggested at beginning and which I had tried very hard maintain.

88. I said exceedingly heavy responsibility rests upon two of us here. I had tried for my part to discharge talks we face here with deep sense that responsibility. I willing continue do so. I hoped Wang shared my feeling this regard.

89. Wang said he could not accept charges I had leveled against their action in making public statement. He had at previous two meetings explained his position and reason tthat led for this one time to making public statement on their part.

90. Wang said I asked whether they interested in continuing these talks in previous manner. He wanted point out that in past his side had consistently been adhering to form of talks. However, form in which talks being carried on should be aimed at facilitating development of our talks.

91. Wang said he agreed with me that we had exceedingly heavy responsibility in talks. Public opinion in world had given our talks great attention as well as great hope. Public desires to see improvement in relations between our two countries as well as relaxing tension in Far East in world. However, public does not want see our talks remaining in old position without making progress forward.

92. Wang said they have always advocated means of negotiation to find way to settle statutes [disputes] peacefully. PRC side will fully and certainly discharge task which we shoulder. It his desire and hope that our talks make positive, constructive and honest-to-goodness progress.

93. Wang said he would like advance next meeting from 26 to 25 January instead of usual Thursday.

94. I asked whether this just for this one meeting.

95. Wang said they would possibly want to delay the next following meeting one day to Feb 3, Friday, instead of Feb 2.

96. I indicated I agreed to 25 Jan meeting but indicated I might have some difficulty agreeing to latter change.

97. Wang suggested we leave that question open until next meeting.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1956. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.