487. Telegram 1619 to Geneva1

[Facsimile Page 1]

1619. For Johnson.

Guidance for February 18 meeting.

Refer to your statement at October 27 meeting, repeating reasons US believes Communists have information concerning 450 missing servicemen. Wang stated at November 3 meeting he did not consider this proper subject for discussion at Geneva. He said such information should be sought from MAC in Korea. US accepted this suggestion in good faith and presented list again at Panmunjom on November 26. Communist representative declared that individuals held outside Korea do not come under authority of MAC and therefore irrelevant to discuss them in MAC. Also declared MAC has no connection with POW’s disposed of by PRC. Communist representative accepted list but to date has provided no information. US is entitled to reply either from MAC or from Wang, for this is one of practical matters at issue which Ambassadorial talks were convened to consider.
Inform Wang that in reviewing record of past several meetings, we still do not understand Chinese Communist position on renunciation of force. They agree neither side should go to war over its differences with [Facsimile Page 2] other. But it appears that if hostilities should break out, Chinese Communists would expect deprive US of natural right of [Typeset Page 754] self-defense. Would not Chinese Communists exercise their right of self-defense if US should go to war in violation its commitment? Then how can Chinese Communists seek deny US identical right? Would not Chinese Communists consider that their forces stationed outside their borders had right to defend themselves if attacked?
Point out that Wang does not seem to understand US draft does not require either party to give up its position with respect to merits of its claims. Any draft declaration must be couched in such terms as not to discredit or prejudice claims of other side. Therefore Wang’s tirade at last meeting about alleged US occupation of Taiwan and lack of any US right defend itself individually or collectively in Taiwan area has no relevance to proper substance Agreed Announcement about renunciation of force. Wang’s tirade deals with merits of respective positions. It is premature to take up this issue of merits of respective positions before Agreed Announcement on renunciation force is issued. A discussion of merits of issues can only come after renunciation force by both sides.
FYI. Our present draft is product of long and careful consideration and we are not disposed to alter it. If, however, Wang proposes amend renunciation force draft along lines suggested your 1476, state only that [Facsimile Page 3] you will receive his proposed amendment, give it careful and serious study, and state US view of it later. Make certain Wang submits his formulation in precise and specific terms indicating where in draft his revised language would appear, so we will have complete text in form Communists would be willing sign. END FYI.
Again protest vigorously continued Chinese Communist failure to live up to their obligations under Agreed Announcement. If Chinese Communists should release any of imprisoned Americans on occasion of Chinese New Year moderation of tone might be desirable.
Inform Wang that Immigration Service has now received replies from all its field offices and none is able to identify Yuan Jui-hsiang. Request additional information from Wang to assist further investigation, including date and place Yuan allegedly taken into custody by Immigration and alternate spellings Yuan’s name.
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–1356. Secret; Priority; Limited Distribution. Drafted by Phleger and McConaughy; cleared by Dulles in draft and by Sebald.