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

500. Telegram 1554 from Geneva¹

Geneva, February 24, 1956, 9 p.m.

1554. From Johnson.

1. I opened 38 meeting with following prepared statement on renunciation force:

A. Mr. Ambassador, we have now spent much time in discussing and attempting to arrive at an agreement to a declaration on the renunciation of force that would enable us to proceed to the next stage of our talks in an atmosphere free from the threat of war. As I understand the situation the only objection you have had to the draft we have been discussing was to the clause relating to self-defense. Your stated objections to this clause have been based on the assertion that it prejudiced the views of your government with regard to the merits of our dispute in the Taiwan area, requiring your government to recognize the validity of the U.S. position there and thus preventing your government from peacefully maintaining and asserting its position in this regard. If this were a fact your objections would certainly have validity and I would be entirely prepared to recognize them.

B. However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, I have no such intent, and the plain language of at least the English text has no such meaning or connotation. I have repeatedly pointed out that all that the text says is that in making this declaration each of us states that he is doing so without prejudice to what each of us consider our inherent rights of individual and collective self-defense. As I pointed out at our last meeting, this does not mean that your government is recognizing the merits of any and all U.S. claims in this regard any more than my government is recognizing the merits of any and all claims of your government in this regard. I have tried to make this just as clear as I could and particularly at our last meeting explained it in very simple terms. Therefore, if this was in fact the basis of the objection of your government to this clause, I hope that it has reconsidered its position in the light of my explanations.

C. I hope that it is not the intention of your government to demand as prior or concomitant condition for the issuance of our declaration that my government agree to a resolution on your terms of any of the disputes between us. If this is not the intent of your government I see no reason you cannot promptly agree to the text of the draft declaration we have been discussing and pass on to the discussion of other matters in accordance with the terms of reference for these talks and the text of that declaration.

2. Wang, reading from his notes, said I had properly stated that we indeed have spent so much time on discussion of declaration renouncing use of force. It all the more unsatisfactory that in spending so much time we have not yet been able reach agreement.

3. Chief reason for this delay has been fact that there still exists difference of principle between two of us on this question. It now for both us try overcome and resolve differences existing between us. It also necessary for us to clarify some of points we encountering in discussion such a declaration.

4. Wang, turning to prepared statement, said I had repeatedly stated at last meeting that in making declaration it not the intention to dispute or prejudice views of either side nor to abandon either’s position in any our disputes. I had again made statement along that line to effect declaration does not require any side to prejudice its position or to give up its views in regard our disputes. At last meeting I had also stated that my side already had accepted December 1 draft his side as basis for discussion with only two small amendments.

5. Wang said however the two amendments suggested by me actually contained the entire demands of my side without any modification, which requires his side to abandon its position and which my side had insisted upon all along since beginning talks. As his side has long ago categorically stated, that was what his side absolutely can never accept.

6. Wang said in first place, my January 12 draft requires his side to recognize U.S. claim to right individual collective self-defense in Taiwan area. I had stated that U.S. is in Taiwan area purely for self-defense and that presence of U.S. forces on Taiwan allegedly was in accordance with collective self-defense arrangements. In other words, intention my side in including self-defense clause in draft was to require his side to recognize validity of continued U.S. seizure Taiwan and to recognize U.S.-Chiang Kai-shek treaty. How can this be explained as other than demand that their side abandon its position on our dispute?

7. Wang said secondly, my draft announcement proposed and he would quote “they will not resort to threat or use force in Taiwan area or elsewhere”. That is attempt to confuse international dispute of China and U.S. with a Chinese internal matter. As his side had long pointed out, it was entirely matter China’s internal affair as to whatever means China used to liberate Taiwan, a matter in which U.S. had no right interfere. I had once and again indicated that declaration between us should not involve any third parties, yet every draft announcement put forward my side precisely tried involve internal matter of China and Chiang Kai-shek clique. How can this be explained as other than demanding his side abandon its position?

8. Wang said his side held that purpose for making declaration could only be one of giving expression to desire both sides for peaceful settlement disputes of China and U.S., as well as to give expression to determination both sides seek means realization this desire. It was precisely with this purpose that his side’s December 1 draft was presented. It contained no prerequisites nor did it contain any points which might not be acceptable. His side did not intend to make use of declaration to accomplish any ulterior ends which cannot stand public scrutiny.

9. Wang said his side had proposed and will continue to stand for holding Foreign Ministers’ conference between China and U.S. in order to discuss and settle question of easing and eliminating tension Taiwan area, because this is practical and feasible means for realization desire for peaceful settlement disputes between China and U.S. in Taiwan area.

10. Wang said at last meeting he had asked me whether it intention my side following making of our declaration to preserve status quo our occupation Taiwan and our interference China’s internal affairs while refusing a Foreign Ministers’ conference. He had not yet received clearcut reply this regard. His side considers this question very important to present stage our talks. For if it should turn out that my intention was indeed so, then his side sees no point in continuing these talks. If however this not my intention then my side has no justification whatsoever to keep insisting his side abandon its position, thus preventing us from making progress.

11. Wang, turning back to his notes, said in statement I had made this morning I had stated that if their objections to self-defense clause were based on belief that this self-defense clause prejudiced their position and their views with respect to disputes and if this the fact, then their objections could certainly have validity and I would be entirely prepared recognize them. In other words, did I mean that in recognizing validity their objections that I prepared withdraw self-defense clause from draft announcement?

12. I said his statement this morning here, including his question which he had asked at last meeting and again repeated this morning, seemed to me to be still confusing the situation. I had tried at previous meetings and had tried again this morning to keep very strictly to immediate and first task in front of us. He had said I had not changed my position with respect to our declaration. That was true, insofar as principles which I had enunciated first here on October 8, were concerned. That principle was sound and could not be changed. I had thought and he had often stated here, that he had accepted that principle. That principle was that we each make clear that we renounced use force to make policies of either prevail over other. I had characterized that as an essential foundation and preliminary of success in discussion other items.

13. I said we both recognized that area in which our policies confronted each other most seriously was the Taiwan area. I had also made it clear that the enunciation this principle did not mean either us were giving up what we considered to be our legitimate rights self-defense. That is, if we were attacked we would defend ourselves. All this comes down to simply saying in a clear and unequivocal form that we were determined to use only peaceful means in settlement our disputes.

14. I said recognizing that there was a difference between us regarding character of dispute between us in Taiwan area, and recognizing the interpretation placed by his government on character that dispute, in order to leave no possibility doubt concerning that area, it was considered essential that we both make clear that such declaration would apply that area. As I had often pointed out, question is not one of obtaining some form of words that would give impression of agreement between us, but one of genuine understanding and agreement between us.

15. I said his December 1 draft, the explanations with which he accompanied it, and public statements issued by his government did not make clear that there was full understanding between us that he would not, by interpreting situation in Taiwan area in manner that he did, subsequently allege that declaration did not apply there and that he free use force. However the dispute there was characterized, a declaration which did not clearly cover that situation was certainly of little value. If we genuinely renounce force in settlement our disputes, that renunciation certainly must cover the principal and most urgent dispute between us. Saying that force would not be used certainly did not require abandonment by either side its view regarding character dispute.

16. I said he had said that purpose his draft December 1 was to set forth desire both sides for peaceful settlement of disputes. Point I been trying make was that there was vast difference between, on one hand, setting forth pious hope for peaceful settlement and saying that if settlement is not satisfactory force would be employed, and on other hand unequivocally saying that force will not be used as means settlement and only peaceful means will be used. Amendments which I had suggested to his draft December 1, I believed, were essential to make this clear.

17. I said he had again said this morning that intent my government in including clause regarding self-defense was to require his government recognize U.S. claims regard our dispute that area. He had stated this in face my repeated and very categorical statements this not our intent. I had stated this not only in meetings here, I had stated so in my original statement this subject October 8, and I stated it very clearly my draft November 10, which he had rejected.

18. I said question was who was to be master in this situation? Did plain words have some hidden intent of their own? Were words to be master in situation? Or did words simply say what we said that they say?

19. I said I had said this morning that if his objections to words had validity I would certainly be prepared recognize his objections. However I did not feel that his objections did have validity. I entirely failed understand why his government insisted on putting this distorted interpretation on these words, if in fact it the intent his government unconditionally to renounce force in settlement our disputes.

20. I said question he had asked again this morning seemed to me in effect to be whether, when we came to discussion other matters between us, my government intended to capitulate to position his government with regard points in dispute between us. If I understood him rightly, he saying that in effect there no point in continuing these talks unless I would assure him here and now that when we came to discussion these other matters I would entirely concede to his position. This was hardly in the spirit of negotiation and seeking peaceful means for settlement our disputes, seemed to me it came very close saying that he not willing renounce use force in settlement our disputes unless he first assured that other side would capitulate to his views in settlement of dispute.

21. I said this was again jumping over question of our declaration to question of merits of our disputes. As such I did not consider question to be a proper one. If he had asked me the question in relation to our declaration whether it my intent in issuance this declaration that he abandon his views with regard status Taiwan, or respective merits our positions with regard thereto, and his views with regard to meeting of Foreign Ministers, my answer would have certainly been a categorical “no.”

22. Wang said statements he had made this morning were intended to clarify our respective points view on question issuance declaration between us. As he had previously stated repeatedly, in making such declaration it necessary both sides indicate willingness make mutual concessions. As he had often pointed out, amendments put forward my side to December 1 draft turned out to be merely further persisting in my original point or without displaying any desire make further progress our talks. Statement I had just made had confirmed that this one case—that is, amendments put forward by my side did not indicate any modification principles my side put forward and this showed U.S. side had not made any concessions with regard to declaration. If one side should hold its own views while insisting incessantly that other side should give way on own views, then no agreement could possibly be reached between two sides.

23. Wang said he would point out particularly that it not true as I alleged that his side had accepted what I termed principles my October 8 statement. Could there have been any occasion in which it could be claimed his side had given recognition to U.S. right self-defense in Taiwan area? Was it not fact that point on self-defense clause in Taiwan area had always been point of controversy and point of opposition in course talks?

24. Wang said from opening these discussions he repeatedly had tried make clear that international disputes between two countries China and U.S. must be separated from internal issues of China. Was it not outright interference in internal affairs of sovereign country in trying to make his side do something or to refrain from doing something in regard to Taiwan? Was it not fact his side had always resolutely rejected such a proposition?

25. Wang said question we now discussing was question of making declaration renouncing use force. In making such a declaration, we should make clear that issuance such declaration and actual solution of practical matters between two countries China and U.S. were two separate matters. It did not seem to him practical for us to think that issuance declaration itself resolved practical matters between us. He believed I also in agreement with him this point. Such being case, we should attempt resolve issues between us step by step.

26. Wang said such declaration between us must not contain any prerequisites. Such declaration must not involve domestic matters either side. And points set forth in such declaration must be such as are acceptable both sides. If we had such a common understanding then we would be able settle this question of issuance of declaration. It especially important that we should recognize that issuance such a declaration merely gave expression desire two of us to resolve disputes between two countries in peaceful manner and declaration did not prejudge outcome of settlement of issues between our two countries or how it finally would be accomplished.

27. Wang said if as I had said such declaration should include the most important dispute between our two sides it would tend give impression of confusing expression of the desire with the result of the final settlement. If my point view adopted, it difficult avoid situation in which one side would attempt make its policies prevail over that of other or, in other words, impose its views on other. It did not seem to him that if we put matter in this manner it would help bring us closer to solution this matter. Therefore, as he had said, purpose in making such declaration must be one of merely giving expression desire both sides for peaceful settlement international disputes between China and U.S. in Taiwan area. At same time, such declaration should give expression determination of two sides to relax the crisis in Taiwan area.

28. Wang said I had categorically stated that it not intention my side require them abandon their position regarding disputes Taiwan area, or to give up their views respect respective merits positions both sides thereto, and had categorically stated it not my intention demand they give up or abandon their views regarding holding Foreign Ministers’ conference. By making such categorical statement, did I mean say I prepared withdraw self-defense clause from draft announcement? Could this statement be interpreted as saying I would not require his side, following issuance declaration, to prejudice their right of liberating Taiwan in exercise their sovereignty in this internal affair of China? Could this statement be interpreted as agreement on my part to seeking of what they termed practical and feasible means for settlement of issues between our two states—that is, to seek holding of Foreign Ministers’ conference?

29. I said first, if I understood him rightly, he had said if we were to include in our declaration the most important matter between us it would give impression of prejudging results any settlement. Should I interpret that as meaning that he not willing make clear that our declaration did cover the most important dispute between us—that is, the dispute in Taiwan area?

30. I said next he said that our declaration should not involve domestic matters. Of course we both recognized, I believed, that question of whether our dispute in Taiwan area did involve a domestic matter from standpoint his government or an international matter did go to very heart our dispute there.

31. I said I had told him that it not my intent to prejudice or prejudge his view regard that matter. However if it his intent that in this declaration the U.S. recognize and accept his view of its being solely a domestic matter, was that not again jumping ahead of ourselves and asking U.S. to concede to his views on this matter at this stage?

32. I said with regard self-defense clause, I had again pointed out this morning that all it said was that, in making this declaration, each of us was doing so without prejudice to what each us considers inherent right self-defense.

33. I said now for my own government to state that in context this declaration did not, as I pointed out this morning, mean that he was accepting merits any and all my claims in this regard any more than it meant my government accepting merits any and all his claims that regard. I thought that was keeping very strictly to principle of not prejudging merits of any our disputes in issuing this declaration.

34. I said however in light his statements here as well as public statements made by his government I could only interpret his demand for withdrawal that clause to mean recognition by U.S. that its claims this regard in Taiwan area did not have merit. That was prejudging question. It was something it obvious my government could not accept.

35. I said he had quoted me as saying that it not my intent require him abandon his views with regard disputes in Taiwan area, regarding holding of Foreign Ministers’ conference, et cetera. What I had said, and I repeating, was that it not my intent in this declaration to require him abandon his views or to prejudice them in any way in these regards.

36. I said it not my intent interpret declaration, or use it as pretext for interpreting it, that he had abandoned his views in any these regards. I was sure that nobody would so interpret it. Declaration would be interpreted by us, and I sure by world, to mean only exactly what it said. And what it said did not prejudice his views. I therefore still found it extremely difficult see why he not able agree to it unless his intent was that U.S. in this declaration abandon its views.

37. Wang said first thing he would like say was that we still in stage of discussing proposed declaration. Today he had made effort try make clear purpose making such declaration, and that in making such declaration does not mean that issuance declaration itself will resolve our disputes, nor will issuance declaration itself constitute final settlement disputes.

38. Wang said it might be recalled that joint communique between our two governments on July 25 last year only set forth that we would discuss such other matters at issue between two sides. It did not single out exact matters to be discussed.

39. Wang said what we discussing today is question of making declaration in view of existence of confrontation of policies two countries in Taiwan area. Dispute between us very grave indeed. This dispute caused solely by U.S. occupation Taiwan. Problem we facing is to indicate by what means this dispute might be resolved.

40. Wang said declaration we now discussing just such a declaration in order to indicate desire of two sides for peaceful settlement of disputes between two countries. Such desire very important thing. Important though it is, yet it not final solution. With regard outcome dispute, we had set forth in declaration determination of two sides to strive seek means for realizing solution.

41. Wang said practical and feasible means they had in mind was exactly meeting of Foreign Ministers U.S. and China.

42. Wang said he believed by separating these two matters, could greatly facilitate carrying out of task before us.

43. Wang said international disputes between China, U.S. must be separated from domestic issues between China and Chiang. These two matters which distinctly different can be separated. Could it be said that U.S. intends discuss China’s domestic affairs in talks between China U.S? They had categorically stated in past and repeated over and over again that they would resolutely oppose such proposition.

44. Wang said turning now to question of self-defense, he had stated that every country entitled to right self-defense in accordance with spirit of U.N. Charter. But he had also pointed out at same time U.S. not justified in claiming right self-defense in Taiwan area.

45. Wang said I had also stated in past that they did not object in principle to right self-defense. Should he interpret this as agreement on my part, instead of this clause, to rewrite draft in accordance with U.N. Charter in same manner as their first draft of October 27?

46. Wang said situation confronting us one in which U.S. force already being used in Taiwan area. I had said that in making such declaration it did not prejudice their views or require their side abandon its views. However, by continued insistence my side on self-defense clause, was it not our intent to require them abandon their position with regard dispute in Taiwan area?

47. I asked Wang to let me immediately answer his last question. To let me say again what I had said over and over again, that it not our intent require him abandon his position regarding merits our disputes there.

48. I asked Wang let me turn question around and ask if it not his intent in requiring abandonment this clause to obtain acknowledgment from U.S. that it does not have right individual collective self-defense in Taiwan area, and thereby to accept in this declaration his one-sided contentions with regard our dispute there, which involve very points at issue between us.

49. I said only other point I wanted make was that he had said this declaration should indicate desire of two sides for peaceful settlement. My contention from beginning had been and still continued to be that if that desire honest and unequivocal it must go beyond that and say that we determined settle disputes only (repeat only) by peaceful means. It should not be possible for either of us by giving one interpretation or another to situation with respect those disputes in fact to resort to force to settle them.

50. I said I thoroughly agreed that this declaration was not the final result. It in itself settled nothing, except that we determined our disputes should not lead to war, and in that atmosphere to seek their peaceful settlement. From very beginning I had characterized declaration as preliminary to discussion our disputes.

51. I said as I had said at last meeting and again this morning, once declaration issued, it was intent U.S. to carry it out in full and in good faith. We said in declaration that we determined we will settle disputes between us through peaceful means. We said that two of us should continue our talks to seek feasible and practical means for realization that desire. Wang could be certain that U.S. would carry this out to full. He could also be certain when U.S. said in declaration it would not resort to threat use force in Taiwan area or elsewhere, it meant exactly what it said and that we would not by some twisted interpretation of situation attempt to get around it.

52. Wang said if there is willingness to make such declaration and to indicate that neither side would be required abandon its position then they failed see why U.S. would not withdraw its demand with respect self-defense clause.

53. Wang said I had indicated I accepted principle that declaration should be one which acceptable both sides. How could I expect them to accept clause in declaration which only in one-sided interests of U.S.? Did this continued insistence on unreasonable clause mean that U.S. unwilling put out this declaration at all?

54. Wang said if in fact I had such a willingness make such declaration giving expression to desire for peaceful settlement and giving expression determination of two sides seek practical and feasible means for solution tension in Taiwan area, (and by this last paragraph of draft they had in mind holding of Foreign Ministers’ conference)—if I had this willingness, did it mean also I had same willingness with regard to practical and feasible means specified in draft, as they understood it?

55. I replied I thought we again getting ahead selves. If he by his question meant did I agree here and now before declaration issued that only practical and feasible means for settlement disputes by peaceful means was through Foreign Ministers meeting, my answer would have to be no. When I said practical and feasible means I was not excluding any means, nor was I agreeing that there only one means.

56. I said it seemed me at present stage question is fundamentally different. Question was whether we really, honestly and unconditionally in this declaration say we will use only peaceful means in settling disputes and that we will not resort threat or use force and in that atmosphere seek, as declaration says, practical feasible means realize that desire. I had to confess I still not clear as to whether or not he really did unconditionally renounce threat or use force in seeking this settlement.

57. I said as far as prejudicing his position concerned, he would recall that back in my draft of November 10 it was my suggestion we make specific and categorical statement to effect we not prejudicing our positions. If this still genuinely his concern, I did not see why he rejected that draft.

58. I said as I had said I still could only interpret his position as demanding my government not only prejudice but in fact renounce its position with respect our dispute. That still my interpretation.

59. Wang said my remarks did not seem to have given reply his question. I had stated that he had asked me to agree before declaration issued that only practical and feasible means was Foreign Ministers conference, and I had said I would answer no. But he had not asked me to say so before declaration issued. He was talking about what should happen after declaration.

60. Wang asked if by replying no I meant that I was not agreeing that holding of Foreign Ministers conference is practical and feasible means.

61. Wang said his next point was that I had asked whether in making declaration it meant we would only use peaceful means settle disputes between us. Text of his December 1 draft had given me very precise and clear answer to this question.

62. Wang said I had stated I still not clear about his intent this regard. In turn, he would like say he still not clear whether it intent U.S. following issuance declaration continue its seizure Taiwan.

63. I replied it seemed me Wang still getting us down byroad of discussing what happens with regard settlement our disputes after declaration issued. I did not see that there would be much purpose in repeating answers I had consistently given this regard. I wished we could get agreement on declaration and then we could carry on in accordance its specific terms. I had nothing more say on this this morning.

64. Wang said it was because he had some questions in doubt that he had put them forward to me. Before these points made clear, issuance declaration would be of no meaning.

65. Wang asked whether I meant, as I had just stated, I would not agree to holding Foreign Ministers conference following declaration? Did I have this in mind, or perhaps his understanding not correct.

66. I said if his questions were whether U.S. would, following issuance declaration, concede to all his views, there could only be one answer. I could only characterize this as most remarkable prerequisite for issuance of declaration. I had said with regard to his specific question on Foreign Ministers meeting that I did not exclude any feasible means for realization our common desire for peaceful settlement our disputes, nor did I agree that there only one means for realization this desire. I did not and would not go beyond words of declaration itself, words which he had suggested.

67. Wang asked if we then were agreed that we could accept this draft they had proposed.

68. I said I had already accepted language of last paragraph their draft.

69. Wang said by that paragraph they precisely had reference to Foreign Ministers conference. Did I also accept that? Did I mean we had same understanding with regard that paragraph?

70. I said I couldn’t see how I could go beyond what I had already said. I fully understood that Wang had in past and probably would in future contend that there should be Foreign Ministers meeting. I did not see that anything he said in declaration prejudiced his position that regard.

71. I said Wang perfectly aware of my position that I consider such discussion premature at this time. I did not see that anything said in declaration prejudiced position.

72. Wang said reason why he had forward that question was because they considered declaration they discussing closely related to practical and feasible means specified in declaration. They had never said Foreign Ministers conference should take place before issuance declaration nor had they contended that we should not discuss declaration at this time but rather discuss Foreign Ministers conference at this time. He had only said that issuance declaration should be connected with holding Foreign Ministers conference. Only in this way could we express desire stated in declaration and at same time have practical means for peaceful solution our disputes.

73. Wang said of course at present stage most important question is issuing of declaration. They had made perfectly clear their views this regard. They had also pointed out what they considered unacceptable. They would hope that I would reconsider this whole matter in light of what Wang had said this morning and they would hope we would be able get closer in this regard next meeting.

74. Wang said if I had nothing further this morning, he wanted raise another matter. He wanted discuss with me question of Chinese nationals in U.S. who desired return but being prevented. He recalled that in previous meetings he handed me names 31 Chinese in this category. Their attention again been called to fact there three more Chinese this category who desire return but not able do so. He would hand me list of names and other information. (Did so)

75. Wang said next thing was he would appreciate if I had anything to say or any information give him regarding 31 whose names he gave me and who desire return but unable do so, as well as situation those Chinese who imprisoned by U.S.

76. Wang said with regard question of medical information about disease of Liu Yung-ming which he discussed with me last meeting, he would appreciate it if I would kindly inform hospital send such material to Chinese Red Cross in Peking.

77. I said let us be very clear about this matter. Neither in agreed announcement nor elsewhere had U.S. accepted any responsibility for investigating every individual Chinese in U.S. U.S. said it had not and would not offer any obstruction to departure any Chinese from U.S. to Wang’s country. Very simple, clear and definite procedures to which Wang agreed had been set up to insure this was case. U.S. has fully and faithfully carried out all its obligations under agreed announcement. I had said over and over again no Chinese who desires return Wang’s country being obstructed in his departure.

78. I said I had explained to Wang procedures for assuring that this is case. If Chinese have not left U.S. for his country, it purely because they do not desire do so. I could not accept any obligation to poll or screen each Chinese to determine why he didn’t want return. Neither would I be party to bringing any pressure on Chinese to do so. He entirely free do whatever he wants. If he feels he in any way obstructed from leaving he entirely free communicate with Indian Embassy.

79. I said anybody who at all familiar with situation in U.S. knows that there is such freedom of communication. There are no exceptions.

80. I said I had previously indicated and still would indicate to Wang my willingness to take up here, if it not taken up through proper channel of Indian Embassy in Washington cases of anybody who in fact being obstructed. Almost without exception, cases that Wang had brought up here appeared to be simply those of persons who had not written home for some time or might have changed minds about returning, if they ever had genuine desire return.

81. I said vague statements such as those contained in list Wang had given me today, for example “continues desire come back but unable do so due U.S. obstruction”, constitute not slightest shred of evidence that there any obstruction departure.

82. I said it truly remarkable that if all those whose names Wang given me desired come back and were in fact being obstructed, not even one of them, or even a friend of any of them, had brought case to attention Indian Embassy, or that, if Indian Embassy had thought there any merit to their complaints, that it had not brought them to attention my government.

83. I said I could only characterize all this as very transparent and desperate attempt find some justification for not permitting return of Americans still held by Wang’s government.

84. I said there nothing vague about desire these Americans return, or about what is preventing them.

85. I said I had very deeply and sincerely hoped agreed announcement would be carried out by his government. If it had been, it could have contributed much to our relations. No matter how it regarded, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that that agreement has been carried out.

86. I said Wang would recall that when we were discussing this matter he had said there would be no comparison between time it had taken to return Americans let out earlier and time it would take to return this group.

87. I said insofar as prisoners concerned, Wang had talked about time required to review cases and other such matters. Apparently in six weeks from beginning talks until announcement September 10, his authorities able complete reviews and release 10 these people. Twenty three weeks now passed today since we made that agreement and Wang entered into that commitment. In those 23 weeks, six persons been enabled to return. I thought facts spoke for selves.

88. I said I was, as I had promised at last meeting, looking into availability hospital records on Liu Yung-ming and would supply them if possible. I had taken note and would transmit to my government Wang’s request that they be transmitted to Red Cross in Peking. I presumed that no further address than that was needed.

89. Wang said that correct; only “Chinese Red Cross Society, Peking.”

90. I said doctors who attending Mrs. Bradshaw and Kanady, who both suffering mental illness at time departure Wang’s country would appreciate receiving similar medical records with regard illness and treatment. Records could be delivered here to me and I would see they forwarded to proper people.

91. Wang said I had not yet given clear reply to questions he put regarding Chinese whose departure prevented and with respect Chinese who imprisoned by U.S. He could not accept my explanations and remarks regarding situation Chinese in U.S. as satisfactory.

92. Wang said they had not asked me make investigation of all Chinese in U.S. They had only raised question of those who have definite names and definite facts and where departure being prevented.

93. Wang said I claimed U.S. carrying out agreed announcement and carrying out obligation under it. This only one aspect of question. Other aspect this matter shown by measures taken by U.S. in forcing Chinese obtain entry permits Taiwan and apply for permanent residence in U.S., and such other measures which prevent Chinese who desire return from doing so. I had asked whether it intent their side for U.S. exert pressure on Chinese force them return home. They not asking that pressure be put on these people. Only asking that such pressures which preventing them from leaving be removed.

94. Wang said my argument seemed to be stating that U.S. on one hand granting Chinese freedom return while on other hand suppressing freedom return and obstructing return.

95. Wang said I had made reference to communications with Indian Embassy. He had made views this regard clear previously.

96. Wang said I had made remarks to effect PRC side trying use as pretext bringing up of this question of Chinese who prevented from returning, trying use that as pretext to prevent Americans from returning. He considered that distortion of facts.

97. Wang asked if I viewed agreed announcement as agreement solely relating to matter of Americans in China rather than agreement on return of nationals of both countries.

98. Wang asked if agreed announcement intended require only Chinese carry out agreement while US exempted from obligation of carrying it out.

99. Wang said I had made comparison with respect time already elapsed after issuance agreed announcement and stated that in 23 weeks after issuance announcement only 6 Americans have returned. If we for moment followed my logic, then it was fact that six persons had returned to America after announcement issued. However, in 23 weeks after issuance announcement, despite fact their side repeatedly brought up question of imprisoned Chinese in US, their side still not been given any information regarding these people.

100. Wang said to continue the comparison between Chinese and thirteen Americans who now serving their prison terms, today their attention been called to fact that up to now 34 Chinese who have definite names and surnames, who desire return still being prevented doing so. And there additional 32 people who not been able return.

101. Wang said they had no information from me as to how many Chinese imprisoned in US. They believed this not matter running to few score, but probably running to over hundred. These people not informed of agreed announcement. These people desired return but being prevented from doing so. Yet Wang’s side not allowed even to know about their situation. This contrasts sharply with attitude of Chinese Government in supplying me with information respect to Americans in Chinese prisons. Manner of carrying out agreed announcement as between Chinese Government and US contrasts sharply with each other.

102. I said all I could say was I still have to see single fact or evidence that any Chinese in US been obstructed, prevented or hindered in returning to Wang’s country if he desired return. That was all.

103. Wang said until all these people whose names he had given me, and until Chinese in US prisons accounted for, and until they actually able return, he could not consider US carrying out agreed announcement. They could not consider valid contention that Chinese free return. They still awaiting reply regarding these people.

104. Wang said, (consulting note passed him by Lai, who got information from printed booklet entitled Mei-ch’iao Fen-lei Ts’ai-liao—material on overseas Americans by category) regarding my request for medical records on Bradshaw and Kanady, his information indicated that they not been hospitalized in China, and as far as his information concerned, Bradshaw been cared for by her friend Mrs. Laura Lau, who American. He not sure if medical records available. Of course, he would look into this matter and if they available, he would be glad comply with my request.

105. I asked if it agreeable to Wang to meet next Thursday, March 1. He agreed.

Note: I have no comments on today’s meeting beyond those contained my preceding summary telegram.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–2456. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.