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

466. Telegram 1422 from Geneva¹

Geneva, January 25, 1956, 11 p.m.

1422. From Johnson.

1. I opened 34th meeting today with prepared statement as fols:

A. I have given considerable thought since our last meeting to nature and origin of difficulty which confronts us in present stage our talks. I do not mean to minimize significance of issues involved in our area of disagreement, but I am encouraged to believe if we are sincerely determined to seek with perseverance meaningful renunciation force, which will also unmistakably be applicable to Taiwan area, we can find way out this difficulty.

B. I believe to some extent our difficulty lies in fact that we may have gotten away from underlying principles and purposes of proposed declaration. In my Oct. 8 statement to you, proposed declaration was clearly identified as preliminary step towards peaceful settlement our disputes. It was to be—and I quote—“an essential foundation and preliminary to success of discussions under item two”. This I regard fundamental principle. As I plainly said there should be no question of attempting to settle or prejudge, in this declaration, issues in dispute between us.

C. I can honestly say I have carefully endeavored to be guided by this principle. My draft Nov. 10, I believe, was completely consistent with my statement Oct. 8, in that it was not suggested either of us should renounce any policy objectives which we considered we were legitimately entitled to achieve, but only that we renounce use of force to implement these policies. I have since on many occasions given you similar assurances.

D. Another fundamental requirement of proposed declaration was necessity it be clearly applicable Taiwan area. If declaration was to be useful preliminary to free discussion of our differences and their fair and equitable solution, it obviously had to apply Taiwan area, precisely area in which our differences are most acute, and where danger of hostilities is greatest. I believe my drafts and statements in these meetings have all recognized this requirement that our declaration be fully responsive to situation in which confrontation of policies of our two countries is most immediate.

E. Despite fundamental and even obvious character these two requirements, you for long time persisted in your objection to their retention in our declaration. You have also claimed my amendments Jan. 12 to your draft Dec. 1 required your govt. renounce its policies or abandon its well-known position with respect Taiwan area. I have given you repeated assurances that was not my intention. I again assure you it would not be in keeping with what I regard as fundamental character and high purposes of declaration for me to attempt to trick you into form of words that could be represented as renunciation by your government of its claims and peaceful pursuit its policies with respect Taiwan area. First, I have too much respect for your intelligence and that of your Prime Minister to think such an effort would be successful. Secondly, it would not be intelligent on my part even if I were successful in doing so. We would be entering into agreement that would mean one thing to one party, and something else to other party. While we would thereby be able momentarily to present to world surface appearance of agreement, in fact we would simply be creating further cause controversy and [garble] between our two countries. This would serve interests of no one honestly interested in reducing causes of our controversies.

F. I renew my plea you approach this matter in the same spirit. You certainly cannot reasonably expect my government can in any manner be forced in such declaration either explicity or implicitly to renounce its view with respect Taiwan area or its legitimate rights. You certainly cannot expect US to say if American vessel on lawful mission is fired upon it foregoes right to defend itself. You certainly cannot expect US in effect to say it renounces right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack—probably oldest, most fundamental and generally recognized right in law of nations.

G. Apparent attempt your govt. accomplish this purpose distorts simple and straightforward objective my Oct. 8 proposal. It can only be interpreted as effort on part your govt. attain in our negotiation of this declaration capitulation by US to demarche your govt with respect our controversy in Taiwan area. Your govt. cannot seriously expect it will be successful in this.

H. Effort to persist in this as well as continued failure your govt. fully to carry out agreement Sept. 10 with respect Americans imprisoned your country can only continue to delay time when it will be possible for us to enter into constructive discussion other practical matters at issue between us. For my part, I continue to hope it will be possible for us to enter into such discussions without further unnecessary delay.

2. Wang replied from notes taken during my statement that he had listened to my statement this morning, but failed note any new constructive remarks in it. He very much regretted that arguments which he had repeatedly refuted in course of talks had again been raised.

3. Wang said on his part it had always been their stand that talks should make positive steady progress. He didn’t see how points raised by me, which unacceptable their side, could lead talks forward. He did not see any difference between points advanced this morning and those presented at last meeting. He had already given his comments on points raised last meeting. He would like make further comments now.

4. Turning to prepared statement, Wang said at last meeting I had lauded allegedly good record of US in world affairs and stated that in Korea US demonstrated restraint and lack aggressive intention. He had already indicated their views on this at that time. He would again point out that version given me grossly at variance with facts.

5. Wang said US performance in Korea and on Chinese territory as witnessed by Chinese people in past and at present time points entirely different record. US started war of aggression against Korea in June 1950 and ordered its armed forces to push towards Yalu and Tumen Rivers. Security of Chinese nation was greatly threatened and Chinese people could not stand idly by. Chinese people could not but rise in self-defense.

6. Wang said US at same time as its aggression against Korea also used threat and force against China in Taiwan area. Since intrusion US Seventh Fleet into Taiwan Strait, Chinese province of Taiwan fallen prey to direct aggression of US.

7. Wang said US has established naval and air force bases on Taiwan and stepped up equipping of Chiang Kai-shek clique, turning Taiwan into base of contemplated invasion of mainland. Such is matter of fact well known to all. Is there slightest grain in this performance which could be presented as restraint and lack aggressive intent?

8. Wang said Taiwan Chinese territory. Even US had assumed solemn pledge this effect. It matter of fact that Taiwan and Penghu turned over to then Chinese Govt. on Oct 25, 1945. This fact also acknowledged by US in White Paper published by State Dept. It indisputable matter of fact that new China has succeeded to China’s entire territory and sovereignty.

9. Wang said as US has used force and threat against China in Taiwan area China has every justification to repel such aggression in exercise right of self-defense in its own territory. Nevertheless, China still willing seek for settlement this dispute between China and US by peaceful negotiations without resorting force.

10. Wang said it would not be difficult for me see that it PRC side which genuinely demonstrated self restraint and control. They always stood for peaceful settlement of dispute in Taiwan area between China and US by means of negotiation. In course our talks PRC side has repeatedly made major efforts and presented reasonable drafts for announcement renouncing use force by both sides.

11. Wang said their reason for holding of FonMin conference, which they still hold, exactly demonstrates their stand in this regard. However, confronted with circumstances in which US already using force against Chinese territory Taiwan, proposition of non-employment of force cannot be used to induce China to accept US occupation Taiwan.

12. Wang said, in order realize principle of non-use force in relations between China US, conference between ForMins two countries must be held to settle question of eliminating and relaxing tension between two countries.

13. Wang said we now spent four months on discussion second item agenda. If US genuinely willing renounce force and accept peaceful settlement dispute it should withdraw forces from Taiwan area. Unfortunately they had not yet seen any actions on part US to withdraw forces and stop posing threats in Taiwan area, nor had they heard any remarks from me ponting towards that end.

14. Wang said, as if to add to this, Mr. Dulles who leading figure of US foreign policy recently declared that America had thrice gone to brink of launching atomic war, recently stepping up military activities in Taiwan area which aimed at creating tension. In recent months American military aircraft made repeated intrusions into China’s territorial air.

15. Wang said US refuses touch on question of withdrawing its forces and ending threat, yet persists in demanding China accept its right self-defense on Chinese territory Taiwan. Was this not resort to perversion of facts and turning argument upside down?

16. Wang said to respect right of state to individual collective self-defense in conformity with UN Charter one thing; to whitewash oneself with false claim to self-defense is quite another. Was this not clear enough? Could there be found any stipulation in UN Charter which could possibly be interpreted as granting aggressor state right of self-defense on territory of state which is victim of aggression?

17. Wang said I had stated that question of self-defense is not substantive issue. This sheer sophistry. If US atttempts carry out so-called right individual collective self-defense on China’s territory Taiwan, this is what Chinese people would determinedly oppose. If Chinese people were to accept such action of seizure as legal, what more remains between China and US which necessitates negotiations?

18. Turning again to pencilled notes, Wang continued that in statement I had made this morning I had remarked that talks have now encountered difficulty. I had acknowledged necessity for us to find way out of this. However, it might be asked wherein lies root of this present difficulty and how we should try to get out of it.

19. Wang said solution to present difficulty should be directed towards effective relaxation of tension in Taiwan area rather than in reverse direction. However, he did not see anything which leads this direction in my remarks this morning.

20. Wang said he could not refrain from pointing out that crux of issues between us is one of substance and principle.

21. Wang said we had agreed to make declaration in conformity UN Charter of fact we agreed disputes between two countries in Taiwan area should be settled peacefully. That is preliminary step. Next step would be for two of us seek practical and feasible ways to realize above objectives. That precisely point of view their side.

22. Wang said US on other hand proposes make declaration in which so-called right self defense of US in Taiwan area to be recognized. Instead of ending its occupation Taiwan, US by such declaration contemplates legalizing its occupation. That is controversy of principle with which we confronted.

23. Wang said Chinese people will never accept any terms in declaration which recognize so-called right of self-defense of US in Taiwan area. If US refuses give up so-called right self-defense in Taiwan area, can only create doubts as to whether US sincerely desirous of peaceful settlement of disputes between two countries.

24. I said I had just few preliminary comments make on statement he had just made. I had no desire enter into debate on matters past history, which cannot contribute to progress in our discussions here.

25. I said I found it impossible, however, pass by his statement that US started war of aggression in Korea in June 1950 and that security of China was threatened by US. I simply wanted point out fact that, with exception of those associated with that aggression against ROK, virtually every member UN agreed on who true aggressor was.

26. I said his statement regarding use force and threat to his country in Taiwan area at time Korean hostilities so entirely ignored action taken that time just to prevent spread of hostilities to that area.

27. I said his statement regarding US as attempting turn Taiwan into base for aggression against his country also entirely ignored facts. Purely defensive character and strictly limited arrangements of collective self-defense in Taiwan area by US has been published too and is well known by entire world.

28. I said tension Taiwan area had been caused not by any action taken by US. Tension been caused by long repeated, often reiterated, and still continued threats his country initiate hostilities that area.

29. I said it was US had proposed it be made clear that there is determination not initiate hostilities in area but seek solution to disputes existing between us in area by peaceful means. Not conditionally by peaceful means—that is not to say that if solution not found entirely satisfactory to one side or other that force will be resorted to, but unconditionally that solution be found by peaceful means.

30. I said he also persisted this morning in speaking of US occupation Taiwan. US is not occupying Taiwan. Presence US forces in Taiwan area in accord with collective defense arrangements with a government that is member UN and is recognized by great majority world governments. No amount words can twist this fact into supporting statement that US is in occupation Taiwan.

31. I said, however I recognized these were matters on which we have different views. I have not asked him accept my views in regard these matters. What I had asked was that we unconditionally and without reservations make it entirely clear we will not permit these differences lead us to war. Once this done, we could in that atmosphere discuss our differences and other outstanding practical matters between us with better hope coming to mutually agreeable and mutually satisfactory solutions.

32. I said I had made it very clear in proposing and discussing this declaration that it not my intent they sacrifice their views or renounce their policies. I regretted their not being willing adopt same attitude.

33. I said I regretted this morning that he had made it very explicit that his govt’s purpose in these negotiations for declaration was to require US give up its right collective self defense. This entirely distorts proposal I had made.

34. I said what he seemed be saying was in making this declaration US Govt should entirely capitulate to views his govt with respect dispute Taiwan area. I had made no such demand on his govt and in negotiating this declaration did not believe it proper do so. That, it seemed me, got us completely away from proposition that we first make clear we not going to war and discuss our problems in that atmosphere and moved us to proposition that we discuss our differences under threat our side might resort to hostilities. That exactly situation I had been trying get ourselves out of.

35. I said I regretted that his govt gone so far in distorting this very simple straightforward and fundamental propsal.

36. Wang said he found hard accept views presented by me in my statement. Certainly not his intent initiate debate past history. Was because I raised some historical events at last meeting that compelled him make their views clear.

37. Wang said I had again asserted that no intent part US threaten security China when Korean hostilities started. However, Chinese people could never forget historical lesson given in path taken by Japanese imperialists when seized Korea in order attack China in long run. I had alluded to UN resolution on question of who was aggressor but he might point out that resolution adopted under entire manipulation of US and therefore completely illegal.

38. Wang said, again on question of spread of Korean war which had been prevented: he might point out that was due to strength Chinese and Korean people that expansion Korean war prevented.

39. Wang said, then turning my denial US has occupied Taiwan and turned it into base for attack against China, he might pont out US has made no gestures withdraw Taiwan area but is steadily reinforcing strength that area. Could only raise question whether US is not trying strengthen forces in order launch attack against China.

40. Wang said my claim tension Taiwan area not caused by US but rather by China was glaring distortion facts. It matter fact that liberation by Chinese people entire mainland China had never posed threat against anybody else. If there no presence American forces this area there would be no tension this area.

41. Wang said, as to proposal for relaxation tension between China and US in Taiwan area, proposal first advanced by Chinese Premier at Bandung conference in which he proposed China and US enter negotiations resolve disputes between them by peaceful means.

42. Wang said in order eliminate conflicts in Taiwan area and tensions that area, necessary take practical actions rather than merely render lip service.

43. Wang said I had proposed that disputes in Taiwan area be settled unconditionally, yet in draft presented by US, US claims right of self-defense in Taiwan area. This is exactly a condition imposed by US.

44. Wang said it was this condition that prevented our talks from making progress. Chinese people will never accept my denial that US has ever occupied Taiwan, nor my statement regarding relations between my government and Chiang Kai-shek. It well known fact entire world that corrupt regime Chiang Kai-shek long been veil worn by Chinese people. Without support of US, this Chiang Kai-shek clique can never exist for single day. Action US in supporting Chiang clique and occupying Taiwan is outright violation sovereignty China and interference with China’s internal affairs.

45. Wang said if US continues persist claiming right to self defense in Taiwan area then all my remarks concerning not requiring Chinese renounce pursuit policies or views toward dispute are no more than empty words.

46. Wang said I had given example that if American vessel fired upon it would respond in self-defense. He might ask what sort vessel meant. If merchant vessel carrying on peaceful mission would be one thing. If military vessel intruding into terriorial waters China, it could not claim any self-defense. That action would be outright provocation and act aggression against Chinese people and Chinese people would not hesitate respond that aggression.

47. Wang said turning now to question of declaration on renunciation force. If US refuses withdraw its untenable claim to right self-defense in Taiwan area, it then proves US not willing make any progress on this question.

48. Wang said if US should in any way assume Chinese would accept my proposal, that, he might say, would be an illusion which could only be realized when sun rises in west.

49. I said, in other words his proposition was that, instead of being renunciation of force and agreement settle differences peaceful means, that instead would be renunciation of US of its views, rights, and interests in Taiwan area.

50. Wang said if they were to make declaration renouncing use force and at same time declaration recognized American right self-defense in Taiwan area, what meaning would there be to such a declaration? Probably I was proposing making of statement in which their side would accept continuing armed occupation Taiwan by US.

51. I said I had told him over and over again that it not my intent, and I did not think amendments I had suggested, in any way prejudice their views and policies on area. I still believed I had accomplished that purpose and I had said if they do not agree, willing listen any suggestions they cared make on this query.

52. I said, however in statements he had made here previously in public statements by his government, and again very explicitly this morning, he had stated his purpose in negotiating this declaration was to have US renounce its views and its rights in area. That was something different. He could not expect US do that, either explicitly or implicitly.

53. Wang said, I had said I did not demand China give up its views or position. However, position of China is exactly to liberate Taiwan. This liberation of Taiwan is inherent right of self-defense of Chinese people.

54. Wang said this reasonable position of China was accepted throughout world. He had repeatedly pointed out that US has absolutely no right self-defense Taiwan area. For US to insist on its views or rights in Taiwan area was to interfere in domestic affairs of another country and to seize territory of another country in violation international law. This view of rights of US cannot be accepted by Chinese people. These are unequal rights or views.

55. I said I not asking him accept my views. What I asking was that he take same attitude regarding my position. However, he not doing so. What he was doing, and he had again explicitly stated it this morning, was demand that my govt accept his govt’s views and renounce right of self-defense.

56. I said I believed I had fairly accurately stated my understanding of situation. If I had not stated it correctly, willing to hear in what way I was wrong.

57. Wang said, first, it would be well for me to recognize that purpose present talks was to try settle issues Taiwan area. Present fact was US had occupied Chinese terriory of Taiwan and violated sovereignty of China. Fell upon us two to correct this unreasonable situation. In order to resolve this issue, it not sufficient merely to state that either side need not accept views of other. Some views must be opposed.

58. Wang said today it US which violates Chinese terriory; it not China which violates American terriory. If US would withdraw armed forces from Taiwan area and stop its threats in Taiwan area, no further issues would exist in this area between us.

59. I said I had nothing more on this this morning but had another matter I would like to take up. Made full prepared statement on implementation:

A. I had occasion on Jan 12 to call your attention to efforts your govt create false impression that in some way Americans imprisoned your country, only Americans we were discussing at time of our announcement Sept. 10 last year, were not entitled expeditiously return in accordance with commitment your govt made in that announcement. I had continued to hope this did not represent considered views your govt.

B. However, I particularly regret to note since our last meeting your government has in communication with UK Charge again attempted to justify this entirely indefensible position. In reply to communication with regard Father McCarthy your government has made such extreme assertions as Father McCarthy has no right even ask for repatriation during period his imprisonment and question of his encountering obstruction in departing does not arise during his imprisonment. Your government has even stated that under our agreed announcement of Sept 10 it was agreed cases of imprisoned Americans are basically different from those not imprisoned.

C. It is hard for me to believe your govt seriously thinks such contentions can be supported, and I am surprised that it continues its attempt to do so.

D. In first place you know, I know and world knows that was precisely these imprisoned Americans we were discussing at time our agreed announcement issued. We were not discussing theories, imaginary or hypothetical Americans, we were discussing specific Americans in prison your country. What did your government say with respect those Americans? It first said it recognizes Americans in your country desiring return are entitled do so. It did not say only some selected Americans, it did not say only Americans who have managed to stay out of your prisons, it did not say only Americans released from prison, it did not say Americans in prison basically different from those not in prison, it said Americans desiring return, Americans we were talking about at the time, were entitled to do so. Words cannot be more plain.

E. What did your government next say with respect these Americans? It first said it has adopted and then that it will further adopt appropriate measures.

F. It did not say these further measures will be adopted with regard to Americans already in process of returning, it did not say these measures would be adopted with regard to those who did not desire return, it did not say these measures would be adopted with regard to any theoretical group Americans, it said these measures would be adopted with regard to Americans desiring return, precisely this group imprisoned Americans we were discussing Sept 10.

G. What was next thing said with respect these Americans? Your government said these measures would be adopted so these Americans could expeditiously exercise their right return. It did not say measures would be adopted so they could return when they had completed whatever sentences your authorities chose to inflict upon them, it did not say measures would be adopted so they could return when your authorities decided release them from prison, it said measures would be adopted so they could return expeditiously—not expeditiously from some future date, not expeditiously after they had been released from prison, not expeditiously after lifetime in prison, but expeditiously as of Sept 10, 1955 more than four long months ago.

H. That was statement freely made and freely entered into by your government. Your government could have had no misunderstanding of what statement meant.

I. What is record—thirteen these Americans still in prison. Thirteen Americans falsely given impression that all this has no relation to them. Not only have these Americans not been given their rights under agreed announcement, but your authorities seem to be attempting further to put off day when commitment with regard to them will be carried out.

J. Just with regard to case Reverend McCarthy—after over two years in prison without even trial, and six weeks after this commitment on part of your govt. what happens? Are obstructions to his departure removed so that he can expeditiously return? On contrary, apparent new obstructions are set up and he is finally tried and sentenced four years imprisonment.

K. I fail to see what your govt hopes or expects to gain by this continued delay and evasion in carrying out its freely entered into commitment, and why it adopts course of action which if continued cannot but continue to cast increasing doubt on dependability of its pledged word.

L. It cannot hope conceal these facts or obscure issue by repetition vague and unfounded charges of hypothetical nature against my government.

M. Simple fact is my govt is not preventing any Chinese from leaving US for your country or any other destination of his choice. Third power who you designated to confirm this assurance has not called to attention my govt single case to contrary. There has not to our knowledge been single response to public statement made by Dept of State to which I referred at our last meeting inviting even anyone who knew of any Chinese being obstructed in departing to communicate either with Dept or Indian Embassy.

N. No amount propaganda nor reiteration vague charges can obscure contrast between my government’s record and that of yours in this regard.

60. Wang said, in first place he wanted say he entirely could not accept false and unfounded charges against his govt on its carrying out agreed announcement Sept 10. Statement made by me was another attempt at distorting agreed announcement Sept 10.

61. Wang said he sure I would recall that, in discussions on first item agenda, clear distinction was made between those ordinary Americans in China and those who had committed crimes.

62. Wang said that as to ordinary American residents in China, passages of announcement of Sept 10 quoted by me were entirely correct. His govt has explicitly assumed commitment toward these ordinary American citizens. Along this line their side been consistently carrying out agreement concerning American residents in China.

63. Wang said that once any American civilian in China applied for departure, his govt never in any instance offered any obstruction to him. Even in cases those American civilians who had not yet settled personal affairs in China, policy his govt was assist them to enable them quickly depart. In this respect, no charges against his govt justified.

64. Wang said, as to those Americans who had committed offenses against laws China, they were precisely carrying out agreed announcement as well as principles indicated in our discussions over their handling of them. We had for very long time discussed question of those Americans who have committed offenses. Neither in conversations in course of discussions, nor in text agreement have they stated all those Americans who have committed offenses should be released at given time. It simply said his govt would review each these cases, and would handle their cases with leniency, taking into consideration nature cases as well as their behaviour. As matter fact, their lenient policy towards these Americans has been demonstrated.

65. Wang said among 40 Americans who had committed offenses against Chinese laws at beginning of discussions, 27 been released. Could this action his govt be misrepresented as not lenient? Some of the Americans had been sentenced 10 years imprisonment yet after only five years imprisonment had been released. Was not this example lenient treatment by his govt?

66. Wang said it true 13 Americans still remain prison for their offenses. However, cases these people could in no way be used to charge Chinese Govt not carrying out agreed announcement. It was these 13 Americans themselves who were to blame for their not abiding by law in China and committing offenses against Chinese law.

67. Wang said I had stated that any Chinese in US was free to leave and that Indian Embassy had so far not raised any cases of obstruction departure Chinese. All this at variance with facts. If anyone to be accused of failure carry out agreed announcement, it was US which should be accused.

68. Wang said it precisely because my side continued exert pressure on Chinese in US in violation of agreement that many Chinese dared not attempt return or even communicate with Indian Embassy. Moreover, it because my refusal submit list all Chinese in US and furnish info about Chinese in US prisons that makes it difficult for Indian Embassy carry out its duties. Even after conclusion agreement agenda item one, my govt saw fit to adopt measures further threatening Chinese in US by requiring them secure entry permits Taiwan, thereby depriving them their freedom apply for return in future.

69. Wang said, although his side had repeatedly protested our gross violations agreement, so far had seen no actions by my govt to revoke these measures and improve situation. Might he ask whether US willing implement terms agreement after all.

70. Wang said he would appreciate receiving specific reply from me concerning withdrawal by US Govt of requirement for Taiwan entry permits.

71. Wang said he would also ask me to look into situation of 14 Chinese who were missing in US or whose departures prevented, as given in previous three separate lists. I had not yet given an account of them. Again I had stated in last meeting that I could see no point in their side raising question of Chinese who for one or other reason do not desire return for time being. He considers such attempt at generalization as entirely unjustifiable. For all these have desire return but prevented doing so by US Govt my side has obligation give account on each of these. These represent only fraction those Chinese prevented from returning but does show plight of broad masses of Chinese in US.

72. Wang said this morning he had further list of four Chinese in US (names in fol tel) and requested me make investigation and give accounting on these as well as others. Full details had been given in list he handed me.

73. I said, first, in discussing Americans in China, he had spoken of lenient treatment, we had different views as to what was lenient and what was not, and I would not go into that.

74. I said he had also said his govt had not agreed that imprisoned Americans would be freed at any particular time. I did not think I needed take time review our discussion on this, but both of us well aware of significance of word “expeditiously” in this agreement. We had accepted word in good faith.

75. I said what I had said, and was repeating, was that these Americans were not being released expeditiously. No amount of explanation or rationalization could change that fact.

76. I said I had previously gone into question of what he called Taiwan entry permits at great length. If his govt going to disregard those explanations, I saw little purpose in repeating them.

77. I said, I had said in past and was again saying that I always willing discuss with him and immediately take up case where there appears evidence my govt might not be fully carrying out terms agreed announcement. I continued to be willing do this.

78. I said, however at same time I could not take or accept responsibility for those among tens thousands Chinese in US who do not write letters. As far as communication by Chinese in US with Indian Embassy concerned, anyone knowing anything about US and its postal system would know it perfectly absurd say that any Chinese afraid drop letter addressed Indian Embassy in mail box.

79. Wang said he had already stated their position towards Americans in China and their policy in handling of their cases. He had stated that his govt would continue faithfully to carry out terms agreed announcement.

80. Wang said he also asked US Govt do same in faithfully carrying out agreed announcement and refraining from any actions in violation of it.

81. Wang said situation of Americans in China was quite clear to everybody. And this situation was that their side has assisted these Americans in China. But they still not able get list Chinese in America from our side. They not even been furnished by US Govt with list indicating number Chinese who are in prisons.

82. Wang said I had just stated it hard understand why nobody among the great number of Chinese nationals in US had written Indian Embassy. This situation quite understandable to them. Situation is result of series of harassments and pressures taken by US Govt toward these people in past. Many people been detained prison, punished with fines, intercepted on way home by US Govt. All this has left deep impression minds Chinese in US. Particularly, after conclusion agreement return civilians, US Govt went so far as to require Chinese civilians residing US to procure entry permits Taiwan. This serious pressure on Chinese residents in US.

83. Wang said I had repeatedly advanced claims concerning 13 American prisoners China. These, as I knew, had committed offenses against Chinese laws. And cases known everybody.

84. Wang said the eighteen Chinese whose names given me previous meetings and this morning represent only fraction Chinese in US who have long wanted return but unable do so. These cases of eighteen show plight Chinese in US find themselves in.

85. Wang said, they ask US expeditiously make an account and give specific reply these cases of Chinese whose names he has given me.

86. Wang said and they ask US Govt should cease threats and pressures against Chinese students. US should adopt measures according with agreed announcement so as to enable these Chinese return expeditiously.

87. I said I did not say no Chinese in US had communicated with Indian Embassy. I did not know whether he familiar with press release of Indian Embassy Dec 20 which said that it been receiving enquiries and applications from Chinese in US. That press release said that some these had raised technical matters which Embassy was taking up with Indian Govt, and some had financial questions.

88. I said I did not know what these technical issues were. My only point was that Indian Embassy clearly was in touch with many Chinese in US. At least thus far, not in single case has Embassy of India, in spite fact in touch many Chinese in US, called attention my govt to any respect in which it violated agreed announcement or where Indian Embassy feels US obstructing departure of any these Chinese.

89. Wang said, as he had said if US Govt would not revoke those unreasonable measures against Chinese, the pressures against their free choice would always be present. They continued ask that US adopt measures in accordance with agreed announcement. He specifically had raised number cases with me, and he awaits my answer to these representations.

90. I said I had nothing more.

91. Wang said he also had nothing more.

92. I asked if he still wished meet next Friday.

93. Wang said perhaps we could advance next meeting—say Saturday 28th.

94. I said in view his suggestion last time I had arranged my schedule to fit and was agreeable his proposal of next Friday or as regularly scheduled on Thursday.

95. Wang switched to agree to next Friday, Feb. 3.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–2556. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.