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

494. Telegram 1513 from Geneva¹

Geneva, February 18, 1956, 9 p.m.

1513. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 37 meeting with prepared statement saying he would like make further observations regarding statement I made at last meeting. First, it was US use force against China in Taiwan area which created serious dispute between China and US. Nevertheless during Afro-Asian Conference China proposed China and US sit down and enter into negotiations about dispute. That proposal gave expression to China’s desire for peaceful settlement dispute between two countries.

2. Wang said in course these talks US side asked that both sides make announcement renouncing use force and threats. PRC side agreed to this idea of making announcement and took initiative in presenting draft announcement, which PRC side later amended after considering US views.

3. Wang said thus problem confronting us evidently nothing else but how desire for peaceful settlement disputes, as specified in proposed announcement, can be realized. As US already used force and threats against China, desire for peaceful settlement disputes cannot be realized unless practical feasible means are sought for.

4. Wang said if US side genuinely sincere in desiring peaceful settlement disputes between two countries, should make honest effort follow announcement of declaration by seeking practical feasible means realize this. Foreign Ministers conference is precisely such practical and feasible means.

5. Wang said secondly it out of question for US to talk about any sort of self-defense rights on China’s territory Taiwan and coastal islands. No amount of arguments such as put forward at last meeting, alleging Taiwan and coastal islands never been their territory could alter facts.

6. Wang said aggressive acts of US in seizure of Taiwan and intervention in internal affairs of China could in no way be turned into self-defensive acts by treaties between US and Chiang clique, which long been overthrown by Chinese people. China absolutely would not renounce its sovereign right over Taiwan and coastal islands. To require their side in making this announcement to give recognition to US right self-defense on China’s territory, to give recognition to Chiang treaty, to give recognition to American seizure Taiwan, is asking impossible.

7. Wang said thirdly as to by what means China would accomplish liberation Taiwan, that entirely internal matter of China in which US has no right whatsoever interfere. Desire expressed by China to strive for peaceful liberation Taiwan if circumstances permit has nothing to do with US.

8. Wang said at last meeting US side asked that China undertake to use peaceful means for liberating Taiwan. Such is unscrupulous intervention in China’s internal affairs which China absolutely will not tolerate.

9. Wang said I had repeatedly indicated that US had no intention prejudicing position PRC side regarding our disputes. As matter fact ever since discussion on making this announcement began US side all along has clung to demand that China renounce its claims. US side has never indicated slightest change in its position. US side has even demanded PRC recognition seizure Taiwan by US. How could I explain this as other than demanding their side renounce its position?

10. Wang said, outside conference room, moreover, US continuously stepping up military activities in Taiwan area. Recently US openly declared it would stage large scale military maneuvers with Chiang forces in Taiwan area. Obviously this further act of provocation.

11. Wang said he asked that US make explicit answer as to whether it intent of US, after announcement of declaration, to maintain status quo of its seizure Taiwan and intervention China’s internal affairs, and its interference in China’s liberation Taiwan and coastal islands, meanwhile refusing hold Foreign Ministers conference.

12. Wang said if that is intent of US, then is it not lot of empty words to talk about “not prejudicing position and rights” of PRC? Would this not be making it impossible to realize desire for peaceful settlement disputes between two countries?

13. I replied that it didn’t seem me statement Wang had made helped advance us in task we facing in attempt reach agreement on declaration on renunciation of force. It seemed me his statement tended again lead us down side road of discussing substance our disputes.

14. I said in attempt to see whether or not we could not advance understanding between us, I had asked him at last meeting two simple questions which I thought would help clarify situation. As I recalled it, first question was whether we were in agreement that only peaceful means would be used settle our disputes.

15. I said other question was what he thought should happen if in violation declaration one side should initiate hostilities.

16. I said he had again referred this morning to his interpretation of draft we discussing as requiring him to renounce his position and recognize positions which he did not desire recognize. I had tried to deal with this question at last meeting, just as plainly as I could. I had hoped I made myself clear, but apparently I had not.

17. I said I had tried make clear draft we discussing including self defense clause did not require either side give up position with respect merits any disputes. What I had been trying do was place self-defense clause in that declaration, to which Wang objected, in its true relationship to remainder of declaration and show that it meant only this: proposition I set forth was that if either side should violate declaration and initiate hostilities as means of attempting make its views prevail over other, or if either side should be attacked from any other quarter, it would be clear that side attacked would not by declaration have renounced its right self defense.

18. I said I had given much thought to this, and had tried think of some way in which I could make this perfectly clear. Therefore, it not with any intent of getting into substance our disputes, or saying things that would lead us down byroads, but with intent of making our interpretation and understanding of this just as explicit as possible that I want try again explain my position.

19. I said let me put it this way. Wang disputed position of US with regard to Taiwan area, and did not recognize merits, nor did he wish to say anything that gave appearance we recognizing merits of position of US in that regard.

20. I continued from prepared statement that Wang said he did not dispute merits of assertion by US of right of individual and collective self-defense at some places but that he did dispute merits of US claims this regard with regard Taiwan area. He said US must abandon its claim with respect right self-defense with respect Taiwan area. I believed that this was honest summary his position, as I understood it.

21. I said on other hand they had claimed and still claimed for themselves right individual and collective self-defense in areas admittedly beyond borders their country and where US considers they have utterly no basis for claiming that right. I did not and would not say anything in this declaration that would recognize or give appearance of recognizing merits their claims this regard, and I did not believe draft we considering did this.

22. I said surely he did not wish issue a declaration in a form that would imply that if their forces attacked they would not defend selves. Surely if after making declaration US should in violation its commitment initiate hostilities, their forces would exercise what they would consider their right individual collective self-defense and defend selves. It was difficult me to understand how then he could attempt to deny to forces of my country very same right.

23. I said Wang had said he would not deny our forces that right in some places but did deny them that right in Taiwan area. My point was that draft we discussing did not in any way and should not attempt deny other’s views or embody agreement between us as to merits respective claims. Confrontation our respective claims does not belong in present stage of discussion.

24. I said all I had suggested was that in making this declaration not to employ force to settle our disputes each of us simply state that in doing so we were neither of us renouncing what we considered to be our inherent right of individual and collective self defense. In agreeing join with Wang in making such statement I did not consider I was in any way sacrificing or prejudicing my views with respect to merits their claims with regard to places at which they asserted that right.

25. I said, similarly, I did not think that it sacrificed their views with regard to merits of claims of my government concerning that right.

26. I said I thought this entirely proper and in accordance with original purpose of not attempting in this declaration to discredit or prejudice views of either. Discussion of merits of respective claims and working out by peaceful means of solutions to those problems where our policies confront each other can only be accomplished after we have made clear that only peaceful means will be used in finding those solutions.

27. I said question Wang had asked this morning was one I could only term as prejudging solutions to problems facing our two countries. As such, I didn’t believe it proper or constructive question to ask at this stage our discussions.

28. I said the US earnestly hopes for and will do everything its power to bring about peaceful solution these questions. The US had no reservations in its determination that only peaceful means would be used in their solution.

29. I said if Wang agreed to issuance of draft we discussing, US would have no reservations in its determination that we seek together, as set forth in draft, “practical and feasible means realizing this common desire.” US continues hope we can reach that stage. US continues hope we will not be longer delayed in reaching that stage by useless attempts get US agree that if its forces attacked they would not defend selves.

30. Wang said he noted that I had expressed hope we would be able to reach agreement on issuance of announcement quickly so that we could enter into discussion other matters. He shared this concern that we had spent much time in discussion this announcement without reaching an agreement on this up to present moment.

31. Wang said that in his opening statement this morning he had pointed out repeated efforts their side to reach agreement by putting forth various drafts which embodied points of view common to both sides and which acceptable to both sides. If indeed my view that we should quickly reach agreement on an announcement, it hard for him to see why US still continues not to accept their draft announcement so that we can advance to discussion other matters.

32. Wang said he had repeatedly made clear that our draft unacceptable to their side because our draft only serves view of US side. Because US draft only gives consideration to US interests and prejudices position their side, therefore it unacceptable to their side. This view of their side had been made clear repeatedly in previous meetings.

33. Wang said it entirely unjustifiable for us to include clause on self-defense of US in Taiwan, which was what their side would not accept. Observations I had made this morning, it seemed to him, in main continued to defend position of US regarding US self-defense in Taiwan area. That, as he had said, was principal obstacle in way of reaching agreement on issuance of announcement. He did not see how this repetition of this position could advance in any way discussion by both sides on issuance of announcement.

34. Wang said with regard to statement I made this morning, there seemed to be three points on which we must be clear. In first place, my statement tended to confuse aggression with self-defense.

35. Wang said it quite true that they endorse and do not dispute right every country, in accordance United Nations Charter, to individual and collective self-defense, and that this includes United States. However, such right of self-defense can only be used in protecting and defending territory of own country against external aggression and attack. This right of self-defense has nothing in common with armed aggression against other countries. So these two things must not be confused with each other.

36. Wang said I had pointed out that they had self-defense arrangements beyond their borders. It true that they have exercised that right of self-defense. If there had not been foreign forces threatening their border and foreign military aircraft violating their airspace, they would not have exercised that right. Chinese exercised that right of self-defense simply in order protect their territory from being violated by foreign powers. However, action of foreign forces in starting aggressive acts on foreign territory cannot be termed exercise of self-defense.

37. Wang said let him put it more concretely and with respect disputes between China and US in Taiwan area. Present grave hostilities between China and US in Taiwan area chiefly result of US action in forcible seizure Taiwan, which Chinese territory. No amount talk, argument, or sophistry can turn Taiwan into state or territory of America. Therefore action of US in forcible seizure of Taiwan can only be termed aggressive action and can never be termed act of self-defense. Same is true other way around—Chinese forces would have no right speak about self-defense if they should forcibly occupy American territory of San Francisco.

38. Wang said I had stated this morning that if American forces were attacked they would not forego right to self-defense. However, present situation is not one in which US forces being attacked, but is one in which US forces have used force against Taiwan and have attacked China. [garble] logic seemed to be equally absurd as that of man who beats up another and while beating him still claims it is self-defense. How can this action be termed self-defense?

39. Wang said from this it should be clear that we should not try confuse aggressive acts with self-defense. These two acts should be clearly separated from each other. By this he meant we should not try explain aggressive action as action of self-defense.

40. Wang said as he had said, they have full right to expel present occupation of Taiwan by US forces. Nevertheless, they still propose settle this question by means peaceful negotiations. This demonstrates peaceful intention of Chinese regarding settlement international disputes.

41. Wang said second point he wanted make was that we should not attempt confuse international dispute with internal matter. This question has always remained before us.

42. Wang said I had asked whether or not China would only use peaceful means in settlement Taiwan problem. It seemed him this question went beyond terms of reference present talks. It entirely matter for Chinese people themselves as to by what means they would accomplish liberation Taiwan. This matter in which US has no right interfere. They would oppose any attempt interfere this matter. Same is true in other respect: that is, China has no right interfere in internal matter of disputes between political parties in US. They had made clear in previous meetings this point of view: that such matters, which essentially internal matters of China, beyond scope these talks.

43. Wang said what we should discuss in these talks is question of grave tension created Taiwan area as result US occupation Chinese area of Taiwan, and we should attempt find solution to this situation.

44. Wang said thirdly he wanted deal with question of relationship between issuance announcement and substance of our disputes. They had always proposed that these two questions should be separated in their order of solution, and this is given expression in draft put forward by their side. It is a practical way—to try to solve disputes between our two countries step by step.

45. Wang said that was why they did not in their draft announcement raise any prerequisites or raise any matter which US could not find acceptable. Whereas in US proposal, US has attempted confuse these two steps and raise self-defense clause, which tantamount to prerequisite. That is where obstacle in way progress our talks lies.

46. Wang said therefore problem confronting two of us seemed to him very clear. It quite clear also why we not reached agreement issuance announcement up to present moment. Present fact is that we have not reached agreement on a proposed announcement. This not what their side desired. Question of what would follow issuance announcement was not one I had asked—what would happen if declaration were violated—but the problem was rather that both sides would attempt find ways and means for realization of provisions which stated in declaration.

47. I said I was sorry we just did not seem able arrive at meeting of minds on this. We seemed be arguing somewhat at cross purposes here. I been trying very hard keep simply to substance of our draft announcement. Whereas he said he agreed with my view that we had to keep our separate steps apart from each other, yet he continually attempting bring us back to merits our disputes. He kept referring to his views regarding our dispute in Taiwan area terming it continuously a matter of US occupation of Taiwan. I had in past and continue resolutely to reject validity any such characterization of question. However, I did not intend repeat that this morning. Because that, I felt, again gets us down unproductive side road of discussion merits our respective positions.

48. I said however whatever term is used characterize our dispute that area, seemed me that position he taking was that solution of that should precede or accompany issuance our declaration.

49. I said he spoke again this morning of what he termed their right expel American forces from Taiwan area. His government has in its public statements also often spoken along same line. This is, and can be interpreted as, nothing else than a threat to initiate hostilities in order to resolve questions at dispute in Taiwan area in their favor. This is principal reason we are here discussing whether or not his government willing give up threat or use of force to resolve our differences.

50. I said this one of reasons I asked him at last meeting and again asked this morning the question as to whether in issuing this declaration they considered that only peaceful means were to be used to settle our disputes.

51. I said there no confusion my mind in this regard. I relating my question exactly to text our declaration. In spite my explanations this morning, he still insists in interpreting amendments I had suggested as attempt by US to trick him into prejudicing their position. That neither my intent nor is it in plain language of draft we discussing. Let me read that. “The USA and the PRC are determined that they will settle disputes between them through peaceful means—and if I may here leave out the self-defense clause—and that they will not resort to the threat or use of force in the Taiwan area or elsewhere.” However in saying this, each of us is also saying in own behalf simply that we doing this and saying this without prejudicing what each of us considers his inherent rights to individual collective self-defense. As I said my statement this morning, neither us by saying that is recognizing or giving appearance recognizing merits position of other in this regard. (At this point Lai had whispered conference with Wang over Chinese December 1 draft.) Both us are simply making clear fact that if either us is attacked we intend defend ourselves. It simply says, when we in declaration say we not going use force, that we not carrying it to point of saying we not intend defend ourselves if attacked. It applies equally to both of us and, as previously pointed out, I would think they would consider it of equal importance.

52. I said it just didn’t seem to me that their objections to it had any validity; and that their demand that it be withdrawn constituted, in effect, demand that US say that if its forces are attacked they will not defend themselves. That of course is absurd on face of it.

53. I said I earnestly hoped that he could reconsider his position on this in light our discussions and my explanations this morning so that we could see whether it possible for us to reach agreement on this at our next meeting. I sincerely hoped we could do so.

54. Wang said they could not but want make clear their point view regarding issuance of agreement. They could not but explain their views regarding what they consider to be incorrect views concerning announcement.

55. Wang said they say US is occupying Chinese territory of Taiwan today. Only after American forces in Taiwan area—such as Seventh Fleet and so on—are withdrawn could I argue that US not occupying Taiwan. That would be matter which everybody would welcome and be glad see carried out.

56. Wang said I had talked much about alleged threats. As long as US forces not withdrawn from Taiwan area, American threat will always exist in that area. This not threat on part Chinese against US, but on contrary is US threat against China. This plain fact.

57. Wang said in spite all this their side still willing negotiate with US in peaceful manner in attempt arrive at solution this dispute. Is not this attitude Chinese side very conciliatory attitude? Certainly we are still in present stage of discussing issuance of agreed announcement.

58. Wang said I had stated that we should confine our discussion at present stage to issuance of the announcement. In course of discussion we should continuously overcome obstacles in our way and keep advancing. If as I had said we should confine discussion strictly to question of announcement itself, was I willing accept their December 1 draft, which he considered very reasonable? His draft says that “PRC and USA are determined that they should settle disputes between their two countries through peaceful negotiations without resorting to threat or use of force.” This says both should use peaceful means, rather than means of war, to settle disputes between them.

59. Wang said certainly he would be prepared listen to any suggestions or opinions I might have regard to this draft.

60. Wang said he had noted that when I read from my January 12 draft I had left out phrase regarding “without prejudice to inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.” He wondered if I meant that I would omit this clause from draft announcement. He would appreciate it if I would clarify these two points he had just raised.

61. I said first I would not take our time to review my previous comments regarding his December 1 draft. I had previously set forth reasons I felt it was defective as meaningful declaration.

62. I said in reading paragraph I had referred to this morning, I had not left out clause on self defense. I was simply trying to read it in context so as to make exactly clear meaning and interpretation that appears there.

63. I said what I was saying was that in making declaration each of us was saying on own behalf simply that we were doing this and saying this without prejudice to what each of us considered to be our inherent rights of individual and collective self defense. By that means I was attempting to make just as clear as I could what this in fact says, at least insofar as English is concerned.

64. I said I was doing this in order try clear up apparent confusion that still existed as to exact meaning and our intention in including it. I hoped that Wang would reconsider it in this light, because I felt Wang might not have fully understood it.

65. Wang said (after consultation with Lai) I had stated that I did not consider their December 1 draft meaningful declaration. However, I would recall that on December 1, when he put forth that draft, I had stated that I welcomed their action in putting that draft forward, and said that it represented progress in talks. My remarks on that occasion served to prove that December 1 draft of their side was meaningful declaration.

66. Wang said if I did consider their December 1 draft a considerable advance in our discussion on issuance of announcement, he did not see why we could not continue our progress along that line.

67. Wang said with regard January 12 draft of US side, he had made it clear at previous meetings that as regards self defense clause included in that draft, it not question of what sort of words to use to express that idea. He had said that it was substantive question with which we must deal.

68. Wang said if I genuinely hoped that we should make further progress in talks, then he would hope I would be able set forth more concrete opinions on basis their December 1 draft at next meeting.

69. Wang said if it my intention to insist on this clause regarding self defense in Taiwan area, and keep heckling about this clause in our discussions, he just didn’t see how we could make any progress in our discussions.

70. I replied that I had only two brief things. First, I did say that I welcomed their draft of December 1 and did consider it advance over position Wang had previously been maintaining.

71. I said I not only said this, but I had shown that I thought this was case by my taking his draft as basis for negotiation and by agreeing accept it as declaration with two small amendments that we had suggested. It frankly just had not occurred to me that Wang would find this self defense clause objectionable or that he would make issue of it.

72. I said I certainly had no intention or desire to build it up into issue, but Wang had insisted on doing so. Again, Wang had just said he considered this matter of substance. How else could I interpret his statements than as substantive demand on his part that US renounce its views regarding merits of our disputes. I had nothing more to say.

73. Wang replied that I had termed my amendments to his draft as very small changes, but he did not think they were very small changes. He considered them to be still insisting on my original position. He did not consider them amendments in true sense of word. They were rather a form of insistence on my original position.

74. Wang said I had stated that in making these changes I did not intend build up issue over self-defense clause. If, as I stated, it not my intent to build up into issue, then he didn’t see why I had insisted on this issue.

75. Wang said I had also said that it not my intent demand or require prerequisite. In view of fact that self defense clause had become issue between us and constitutes prerequisite on US part, this self defense clause had become obstacle to progress of talks.

76. Wang said it was to be hoped that at next meeting I would be able put forth suggestions and opinions that would help progress of talks.

77. Wang said if I had nothing else, he would like bring up another matter. On my assent, he read prepared statement saying that Chinese side had at very start these talks submitted complete list of all Americans in prison in China. They had all along been concerned with status of Chinese in prison in US. In spite of repeated requests that we submit list Chinese in US prisons, US side not only failed submit such list but declared it had no knowledge of Chinese in prison.

78. Wang said he had long ago pointed out that that assertion did not tally with facts. According information offered by returned Chinese there actually many Chinese unjustifiably kept US prisons. He would again call my attention to question of Chinese in US prisons and would appreciate explicit answer from me.

79. Wang said he failed see why my side had thus far not taken any appropriate measures in regard to these imprisoned Chinese, nor could he understand why US so far refused provide either their side or Indian Embassy with information about these people, or why US would not permit Indian Embassy advise these imprisoned people of contents of agreement between China and US of September 10, 1955. Under such circumstances, how could Indian Embassy be expected fully carry out functions provided in agreement. This was situation highly dissatisfactory their side.

80. Wang said Chinese Government and people very concerned about situation of 27 Chinese whose names he gave me in six separate lists with request that I look into cases and give accounting for them. Last meeting, without making any investigation, I had made casual remark that they all free depart. That remark not made with sense of responsibility. All these people being subjected obstruction, not able return. US side had every responsibility look into their cases in earnest, and give accounting for each individual.

81. Wang said this morning he would again hand me list of four Chinese whose return being prevented and request me look into their cases and give accounting of them. Particulars about their situation were set forth in papers he handing me. (Handed over list, transmitted by separate telegram).

82. I said I thought it was necessary to recall that we came here to discuss civilians who desired return. Wang would recall that we discussed subject of lists, and that when we began talks I had given him list of Americans who we had positive evidence desired return and were being prevented from doing so, including those imprisoned in Wang’s country.

83. I said it no part of terms of reference for these talks or of agreed announcement to investigate status all Chinese in United States. There was only one question between us, one question that is concern of Indian Embassy in US. That is, US has unequivocally and unconditionally stated that Chinese in US who desire return PRC entitled do so. Sole question is whether US has and is carrying out that obligation.

84. I said I here and my government also had categorically without condition stated that we have carried out obligation. In event that any Chinese in US desiring return feels he being obstructed, our agreed announcement sets up definite clear and simple procedure. US had even gone beyond terms of that announcement and invited anyone who even knew of any Chinese being obstructed in his desire depart, or who felt he being obstructed to communicate with Indian Embassy or State Department.

85. I said thus far, in more than 5 months that had passed since announcement issued neither these procedures nor any other source had given any specific evidence of any kind that any Chinese in US who desired return being obstructed from doing so.

86. I said raising demands and making requests entirely outside terms reference talks and agreed announcement did not obscure this fact. None of this could excuse continued failure Wang’s government carry out its commitments with regard precise Americans we were discussing at time this announcement issued. There nothing hypothetical or theoretical about those Americans. There nothing hypothetical or theoretical about who is interfering with their return.

87. I said in only one case that he had thus far brought my attention did there appear be any substantial allegation that US could be obstructing his return. That was case of Mr. Yuan Jui-hsiang, which I had told him I was looking into, and whose name he had given me January 12. Wang’s statement regarding him was to effect he been summoned by immigration authorities, interrogated in July 1954, and taken into custody.

88. I said I had had very thorough check made of all our immigration offices and had not been able confirm he been taken into custody at any time, nor been able positively identify that he had had any business with immigration authorities. However, I would be glad try to go further into this if Wang would furnish me further details. Wang’s statement said he summoned in July 1954. If Wang could give me exact date it would be helpful. It would also be particularly helpful if Wang could give me particular place where this took place. I should presume this information should be available from sources Wang had used. It would also be helpful if Wang could give me any information on how he spelled his name in English letters. We had looked into possible alternate spellings under various dialects that might be given to his Chinese characters, but had been unable to identify him. As Wang also knew, it entirely possible he might have adopted a personalized spelling of name—a spelling of his own for his name. Or he might have partially anglicized his name. Any information Wang could give me in this regard would be helpful in looking into this matter.

90. Wang said I had said I came here to discuss and resolve question of civilians both sides who desire return. I had referred to declaration by US that all those Chinese who desire return free do so. I had said there no obstruction whatever on part US against their return. It one thing to say this in announcement, but it important to look into facts. They had always welcomed any news given him regarding return of certain batch Chinese and whenever they also had knowledge any return Chinese they always expressed welcome.

91. Wang said however on other hand, their attention repeatedly been called to fact many Chinese desire return but in fact unable do so. That concerns names those people he had given me and request I look into those cases.

92. Wang said with regard Yuan, their hope was US authorities would continue look into this matter. When his side received further information, he would certainly be glad inform me.

93. Wang said he next wanted call my attention to question of Chinese in US prisons. These people who desire return have not been informed of agreed announcement between US and their side very concerned regard welfare these people. Now question of those Chinese in US prisons is not question of whether or not there are Chinese in US prisons, but is question of how many them in US prisons. I had repeatedly referred to imprisoned Americans in China. He sure I able understand similar concern their part regarding Chinese in prison in US. They would like learn about information on their situation.

94. I said I had nothing more on that subject but did have another brief subject.

95. I said he would recall that at our 23rd meeting on October 27 I had raised with him and discussed at that meeting as well as at 24th meeting October 3, the question of American personnel missing during Korean hostilities for whom no accounting been made from his side. I would not review reasons set forth that time regarding reasons why we thought his side had information concerning them.

96. I said he would recall that he had said he felt that MAC in Korea was proper place for discussion this question and I had asked whether he would recommend his authorities that they agree discuss this question there. My government accepted this suggestion in good faith and in meeting of MAC November 26th raised this question. Although representatives his side made some statements regarding individuals held outside Korea as not coming under authority of MAC, I pleased note that they did accept list. I wanted point out that although almost three months had passed since lists received and discussed in MAC, no information yet received and no indication of intent his side provide information. I simply wanted state at this time that my government considered itself entitled to reply whether in MAC or here, because my government considers this still to be one of practical matters between us which these talks were convened to consider.

97. Wang said I did not seem to have replied to questions he had put to me.

98. Wang said as to US military personnel missing in Korea, he had at beginning pointed out this not matter to be discussed these meetings. It was proper for US to raise question at MAC in Korea. It should expect any reply in same place—that is, in Korea.

99. Wang said he would like remind me not to confuse those matters in Korea with present talks between China and US. He did not consider it proper or wise raise this matter at this conference.

100. Wang said as he had said, if US was concerned over imprisoned Americans in China, his side also entitled know about situation of Chinese being imprisoned in US. Their request for information regarding imprisoned Chinese in US was exactly within scope our talks and was matter which concerned implementation of agreed announcement.

101. I said it not necessary raise matter here if his representatives in Korea would be instructed give reply. I hoped this would be done.

102. Wang said he did not see how issues in Korean War could have connection with Chinese in prison in US.

103. I said I had never said there was.

104. Wang said if I not making such a connection, then why did I not reply his questions regarding imprisoned Chinese in US?

105. I said I did not intend connect two problems.

106. Wang said he had no such intention, but he had raised question imprisoned Chinese in US but I in reply was trying excuse myself by bringing up matter missing persons in Korea. Could only give impression I was trying confuse these two matters. He had no intention doing this.

107. I said I recognized that both questions separate.

108. Wang said he agreed with me that they separate.

109. I said we were agreed.

110. Wang said but question of Chinese imprisoned US still remains.

111. I said I had nothing more.

112. Wang said if I had no answer for him on this question he would hope I would do so next meeting. He had still another matter take up.

113. Wang said this concerns Mr. Liu Yung-ming. After his return China and after diagnosis, it confirmed Liu a victim of schizophrenia and this had something do with ill treatment received hands US. His government now has decided cure him so he will be restored his health at early date. Liu was in American hospital for six years, however when returned hospital did not give him records and information regarding his disease—the diagnosis and etiological information concerning his disease. In order give Liu effective treatment, necessary for hospital their side get and refer to such information. He would hope our side would render assistance and give necessary materials so Liu could be cured early date.

114. I said I be glad look into matter. Had request been made through other channels?

115. Wang said no.

116. I asked if doctor had written hospital?

117. Wang said no.

118. I asked where he wanted information sent, to doctor or to hospital?

119. Wang said perhaps we could make further arrangements in due course.

120. I suggested we return to regular schedule for next meeting.

121. Wang suggested that in order maintain an interval it be Friday, February 24th. I agreed.

Shillock

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–1856. Confidential; Limit Distribution.