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

512. Telegram 1577 from Geneva¹

Geneva, March 1, 1956, 10 p.m.

1577. From Johnson.

1. In view Wang’s evident reluctance open, I opened 39th meeting by saying that in thinking over our discussion at last meeting, it seemed to me we were still tending to get away from principal and immediate task before us, that is question of declaration. Details of our respective substantive positions with regard our various disputes seemed to be obscuring real object at this stage in our talks. To use a vernacular English phrase, we seemed to be getting into position of not seeing forest for trees.

A. I continued from prepared statement, what we ought to be trying to do is to agree on declaration renouncing use of force. That is where agreement is essential at this stage. It would be fine if would agree on everything else too, but past weeks have shown that we have difficulty enough without borrowing more. Can we not at this stage seek agreement where it is essential to task at hand and leave our other differences for settlement when we reach that stage?

B. Here is an example of what I regard as an area where agreement is essential at this stage. Purpose of proposed declaration is to facilitate peaceful settlement of our disputes by first renouncing use of force in regard to those disputes. Declaration can have this effect only if renunciation of force is unconditionally binding with respect to all our disputes. Neither of us should be able, following issuance of declaration, to claim that peaceful settlement portion applies to a certain dispute but renunciation of force portion does not apply to that same dispute.

C. I hope you follow me thus far. Unless words of our declaration have this meaning for both of us, it seems to me that we can only talk in circles.

D. However, with respect to this same part of declaration, there is an area where disagreement at this stage is not only permissible but inevitable. With respect to nature and origin of our disputes, you have your views, and I have mine. You have your views as to what kind of a settlement of each these disputes would acceptable. I have mine. Differences as to merits of our respective views need not, however, prevent our agreement as to unconditional and binding nature of our commitment not to use force against one another in support of these views.

E. Similarly, with respect to last paragraph of my January 12 draft, which is identical with that of your December 1 draft, there are both an area where agreement is necessary and an area where disagreement at this stage is permissible. We must be in agreement in our determination without reservation to seek practical and feasible means of realizing common desire set forth in preceding clauses. We must be in agreement as to desirability of continuing these talks in search for such practical and feasible means. However, we do not at this stage have to determine just what the practical and feasible means are. Must we find what we are going to seek before we begin our search?

F. Situation with respect to self-defense clause is parallel. Should both be able to agree that in conformity with UN Charter and with international law, each of us is entitled to make clear in this declaration that we are not renouncing our right of self-defense. It is only essential that we agree at this stage that neither of us is renouncing that right. However, here too, as with other clauses, a distinction can be drawn between area where agreement is necessary at this stage and area in which some disagreement is not only permissible but inevitable.

G. You have your views as to places and circumstances in which US would, in case of necessity exercise that right. I have my views, which differ from yours, regarding places and circumstances in which your country has claimed exercise of that right. To attempt at this stage to iron out all such differences, past, present, and future, actual and potential, would be futile and can only have purpose if intent is to block rather than reach agreement on our declaration.

H. I have outlined my views point by point and in concrete fashion, concerning areas in which I consider agreement is essential to reach an understanding in our declaration. If you are in agreement with me on these points, let us proceed with issuance of declaration. If we are in agreement in these essential areas, may we not leave our disagreements in other areas to be ironed out in later stage of seeking practical and feasible means for settlement of our disputes?

2. Wang said, reading from notes, I recall it is 20th meeting today since we started our discussion on issuance of a declaration. We had hoped it would be possible for us to reach an agreement on this question.

3. Wang said, such an agreement as I have previously pointed out, must not be taken as capable of resolving all questions between us. Such an agreement would only indicate a common desire of US to settle issues between us. Such a desire should be one that is acceptable to either of us. How can we be expected reach an agreement if one side tries to impose its views on other?

4. Wang said, at last meeting he said to me that he hoped I would be able to put forth further concrete opinions at this meeting. However after listening carefully to statements made at this meeting he found we still remain in same place as we found selves previously. We have now spent so much time discussing declaration renouncing use of force that respective positions and views of our two sides have now become quite clear. He didn’t see any point in letting conferences proceed in this manner. It seemed to him that we turning in circles and always finding ourselves in same place in discussion of such a declaration. Such manner of discussion is not what they originally expected it to be. Wang said I said this morning we should not turn round in circles in discussion. He is willing to explore ground with me in all frankness to see if there is any hope reach agreement in this respect.

5. Wang turned to prepared statement and said he would like to point out once again that clause on self-defense right advanced by my side in draft declaration was absolutely unacceptable to their side. For, as his side repeatedly explained, it was intent my side by self-defense clause to get them into recognizing in effect status quo US seizure Taiwan and US interference in China’s internal affairs in offshore islands. Statements I had made at last few meetings indicated that my side itself has been aware that self-defense clause can be removed from declaration. Therefore, no point arguing. Should my side insist on self-defense clause his side can only come to conclusion that my side not desiring reach agreement.

6. Wang said, as regards my other amendment to his Dec 1 draft, “they will not resort to force in Taiwan area or elsewhere”, his side has pointed out that this is attempt to confuse international issue between US and China in Taiwan area with internal affair of China in exercising right of sovereignty over Taiwan and offshore islands.

7. Wang said I stated at last meeting that US did not acknowledge exercise by China of sovereignty rights over Taiwan and offshore islands as internal matter of China. This has all more exposed my attempt confuse international dispute with China’s internal affairs. Thus, if declaration were to include ambiguous terms of my amendments, even if self-defense clause were removed from declaration, US could still accomplish its ends of seizure of Taiwan and its interference in liberation of offshore islands.

8. Wang said, furthermore in light of ambiguous attitude which my side has so far taken regarding holding of Sino-US FonMin conferences, it threw more light on my attempt calculated at obtaining by trickery a vague declaration which would enable US to interpret China’s internal matter as allegedly being covered by scope of Sino-US declaration and thus justifying continued seizure and obstruction of China’s exercise of sovereign right of Taiwan and offshore islands while on other hand US would procrastinate over a long period and refuse hold FonMin conference in order maintain status quo US seizure Taiwan and interference liberation offshore islands. He must say frankly that his side has seen through such design and his side would not be easily duped.

9. Wang said his side must restate: that China’s exercise sovereignty over Taiwan and offshore islands, which is internal matter, and international dispute between China and US in Taiwan area must be separated. It entirely matter China sovereign right and internal matter as to whatever means will be used for liberation Taiwan and offshore islands and US has no right whatsoever interfere. His side would never permit to see China’s internal affairs involved in Sino-American declaration or to make it subject of negotiations with US.

10. Wang said as regards international dispute between US and China, issuance Sino-American declaration is only first step towards settlement and earnest efforts must be made to seek practical and feasible means to achieve final settlement. His side considers FonMin conference is exactly such practical and feasible means. In view fact, that US has already resorted use of force and threat in Taiwan area, if after issuance declaration US fails take actual action to give evidence of desire expressed in declaration, then declaration itself would become scrap of paper.

11. Wang said I had said at last meeting that Dec 1 draft of his side did not cover Taiwan area. He would like remind me that during April 1954 when Chou En-lai at Bandung made proposal that China and US enter negotiations, he specifically stated that purpose was to settle through negotiations question of easing and eliminating tensions in Taiwan area. In first draft which he had put forward Oct 27, it also clearly provided that China and US should hold FonMin conference to settle through negotiation question of relaxation and eliminating tensions in Taiwan area.

12. Wang said it could thus be seen that his side was not evading disputes between it and US in Taiwan area though disputes additionally included Korean question, implementation of Geneva agreement on Indochina and especially South Vietnam, and US creation of Manila Treaty which aimed against China, and such other questions. However, it was obvious dispute between China and US in Taiwan area is main issue of all. That dispute arose solely as result US occupation Taiwan and interference liberation offshore islands.

13. Wang said his side held that FonMin conference between China and US must be held to settle this grave dispute. His draft of Oct 27 specifically provided for this last point. It merely because my side only willing make declaration of principle and would not agree to declarations specifically mentioning Sino-American conference of FonMin. Thus his Dec 1 draft did not concretely mention Sino-US dispute in Taiwan area. However, just in same way as my side asserted that practical and feasible means did not exclude Sino-American disputes in Taiwan area. If my side desired dispute Taiwan area be specifically mentioned, then my side must agree to declarations specifically mentioning FonMin conference, without which his side would be left with no assurance whatsoever.

14. Wang said question now before us quite clear and simple: if it desired that declaration mention specifically holding FonMin conference as well as dispute in Taiwan area, their Oct 27 draft is there. If however it not desirous to mention FonMin conference and Sino-American dispute in Taiwan area, but that concrete problems mentioned above should be left as next step, then their Dec 1 draft stands. As to which of two drafts will be adopted, they not insistent. I might make my choice between either of two. He only wanted state here that in neither these two drafts did his side demand prior commitments nor that I accept his position. This fair and equitable. That was precisely fundamental distinction between his drafts and mine. If my side still desirous of making renunciation of force declaration, he saw no possibility outside two drafts which his side had presented.

15. Wang said in interest of arriving at agrement without further delay he had exhausted all clear words available in stating his views and he hoped my side would make careful consideration.

16. I said in early part his statement I thought he struck at heart of one of differences and apparent lack of understanding between us. He referred to this declaration, which we discussed, as only indicating common desire to settle issues between us. Later on he had referred to declaration as a renunciation of force in settlement of dispute between us. It seemed that he had tended to approach matter from former standpoint.

17. I said I thought therefore that part of our problem was whether this declaration was to be only pious repetition of desire to settle disputes or whether it was to genuine renunciation of appeal to force to settle our disputes and then in that atmosphere to seek means peacefully to settle them—this was heart of differences in approach between us. As I had said this morning, question seemed to be whether we were in this declaration unconditionally renouncing appeal to force with regard to all our disputes or whether we only piously saying that we desire to settle disputes peacefully but that renunciation of force applies only to some of them.

18. I said statement he had made this morning with regard to inclusion of specific reference to Taiwan in our declaration, seemed to me to bear out this view of mine. I must say that I find myself entirely unable to follow logic his position this regard.

19. I said what it seemed to me he had said was that he was willing make specific mention Taiwan only in context of FonMin conference. That is, he was willing make statement expressing hope for peaceful settlement of dispute between us in Taiwan area if US agreed in advance that only means of discussing such settlement was FonMin conference.

20. I said on other hand his position seemed to come down to an unwillingness to make clear that renunciation of force also applied our dispute in Taiwan area. It seemed me he suggesting that, however our dispute in Taiwan area might be characterized, they were free to use force in that area.

21. I said it hard for me believe he could seriously consider that it would contribute to peaceful discussion and settlement of our disputes if they were to resort to war in very area where he himself agreed our policies were in greatest conflict. He himself had said this morning that our principal dispute lay in Taiwan area. He had said this morning that his Dec 1 draft specifically covered Taiwan area. If this case, it entirely incomprehensible to me why he unwilling accept mention of Taiwan area in form suggested in my Jan 12 amendment if he were in fact willing renounce force in settlement our dispute in that area and seek peaceful means for its solution.

22. I said he had again repeated this morning that he found clause on self-defense as suggested my Jan 12 amendment as absolutely unacceptable on grounds it was intention my side by that clause to obtain recognition by his side of US position with regard that area. It hard for me to recall number of times I had here said that there was no such intent and that this did not require him to recognize any particular state of affairs contrary to his views, any more than it requires US to recognize any particular state of affairs contrary its views. I could assure him US was not submitting to his government for its approval or ratification any of our treaties or agreements with other countries.

23. I said in its proper relationship to other parts of declaration, self-defense clause only stated fact that if one side violated declaration by using force other side would not have renounced what it considered its legitimate right to self-defense.

24. I said opposition to self-defense clause could be based on only two possible grounds. That is, that intent of one side in issuing this declaration is not consistent with exercise of self-defense in case of necessity by other side. Only other alternative was that one side was attempting to get other side to renounce its views with regard to character our dispute in Taiwan area. This I wanted make clear was absolutely unacceptable my government.

25. I said however I continued my willingness to strive reach with him agreement upon this tremendously important subject. I felt way to reaching agreement was not giving of what were in fact ultimata, or of take it or leave it positions, but to continue to strive to see whether or not agreement could be reached.

26. I said it was in this sense that I had made my opening statement this morning. I had tried very hard in it to avoid introducing extraneous issues not germane to our immediate task. It was utter nonsense to say that because US not willing in this declaration unilaterally to renounce its views with respect Taiwan area and concede to his views, that it did not desire declaration.

27. I said he had spoken this morning of ambiguous terms of our Jan 12 draft. It seemed me that shoe was on other foot. His objections to that draft appeared be based precisely upon grounds that it removed ambiguities of his Dec 1 draft. If declaration was to have any real meaning rather than just appearance of agreement where no agreement existed, those ambiguities must be clarified in his Dec 1 draft. I had indicated essential points upon which we considered ambiguities must be removed.

28. I said I had indicated way, in the declaration, that I felt those thoughts might be expressed. I still thought that language which I had suggested was best way of doing it, and if there was genuine agreement on these essentials, there should be no objection to that language. However, I have never put this forward on any ultimatum or take it or leave it basis. I had repeatedly indicated that if he had any thoughts on how it could be better expressed I was willing listen his suggestions and give them careful consideration. It not possible for me see how I could be any more reasonable than that.

29. Wang said in his opening statement this morning he had again made attempt frankly express thoughts his side in order explain more fully their views regarding declaration. He failed see any portion my long argument I had just made which could contribute progress our discussions.

30. Wang said I had stated that he had first made proposal that declaration we were discussing should simply express desire for peaceful settlement, and then that he had referred to declaration as renunciation of force declaration. He did not think that there were any two declarations that he had been referring to, and there were no points of contradiction in his statement. When he said declaration should express desire for peaceful settlement, he did not mean desire that two sides should go to war to effect settlement. Instead it was declaration of desire for peaceful settlement and they regarded declaration we discussing as something which would help peaceful settlement disputes between us and they regarded declaration as first step toward such a settlement. He recalled that I had also said in previous meetings that declaration in itself settled nothing.

31. Wang said I had also repeatedly referred to his opinion that issuance of declaration must be separated from actual settlement of practical issues between us. These were two separate things. However, views advanced by me at previous meeting and again this morning tend to confuse these two things.

32. Wang said text their December 1 draft was quite clear and no distortion any portion it was possible. He would read portion of December 1 draft. It stated: “PRC and USA determined they should settle disputes between their two countries through peaceful negotiations without resorting to threat or use of force.” Let him also read last paragraph their October 27 draft: “In order realize their common desire PRC and USA decide to hold a conference of Foreign Ministers to settle through negotiations question relaxing and eliminating tension Taiwan area.”

33. Wang said thus texts these two drafts have clearly expressed desire for settlement disputes between two sides. Also give expression to our determination to seek practical and feasible means settlement our disputes. How can it be said that such views as expressed in these drafts had any disadvantageous effect against U.S.? Could there be found anything in these drafts which tended to require that U.S. abandon its view.

34. Wang said however U.S. did not accept even these drafts and instead U.S. alleged groundlessly that his side insisted on using force to settle disputes. Was not that utter nonsense? First I had referred to position of U.S. as one of absolute unwillingness to accept views stated above. However I had followed up that statement by saying I willing strive for agreement. Was not that self-contradictory statement?

35. Wang said he had repeated many times that unjustifiable amendments of U.S. regarding his December 1 draft were absolutely unacceptable his side. These were unacceptable precisely because of U.S. attempts to use these amendments to interfere in China’s internal affairs and exercise of its sovereign rights. Must China ask for approval and ratification by any other government of its actions taken in order to exercise its sovereign right in liberation of its own territory? Was not this again utter nonsense? Therefore views of both sides on this issue were quite clear.

36. Wang said they had made repeated efforts on this question of issuance of declaration. They had no intention in this declaration to impose their views on U.S. They considered their views to be acceptable to both sides.

37. Wang said these views were intended to facilitate issuance of declaration. However U.S. is doing to contrary, it had all along been insisting on these unreasonable clauses. U.S. had been insisting on its unreasonable stand for considerable period of time. I, on behalf of U.S., had stated that these reasonable suggestions of his side were unacceptable to U.S. How could we expect to arrive at agreement in this situation?

38. Wang said after such a long time of discussion if I and my side still so adamant its position, how could one not arrive at conclusion that U.S. not willing agree on declaration and was obstructing issuance of such declaration? He saw no point continuing this sort of discussion.

39. Wang said if we still unable to make declaration at present time responsibility did not lie on his side. In view fact we not been able to arrive at agreement for such long time his side considering to make public views of his side on this question, so that public might be able make own judgment.

40. I said I would like try to get down to some fundamentals with him. I had tried in my opening statement this morning but did not seem successful in doing so.

41. I said he had again in his last statement spoken of this declaration as “help” in settlement our disputes. He had also spoken of it as first step toward settlement our disputes. As he knew I entirely agreed with him on latter part—it is only first step and I had always so characterized it.

42. I said however question still seemed to exist between us, as to what this step consisted of. I considered this step to be unconditional and unequivocable statement that we will not in any manner or under any pretext initiate hostilities against each other in attempt to settle these disputes. I would like to ask clear question as to whether he so considered it.

43. I said having said that and in conjunction with that, we each say we will settle disputes through peaceful means. One without other did not give real meaning to our expression of desire to settle disputes by peaceful means.

44. I said having said that, how could he say that it was unreasonable on my part to suggest that we say that both of these aspects apply to dispute that we both agree is most serious between us? How could he say that it was unreasonable for each of us in stating that, that if either is attacked in violation this declaration or by others we will defend ourselves? Objection to either of these simple and fundamental principles I found hard to interpret as other than desire avoid issuing of meaningful declaration that would genuinely be real first step toward settlement our differences.

45. I said if he thought that this position on his part would appear reasonable to public, it certainly his choice as to whether or not he desired again to initiate public exchanges between us. I reiterated view that I had expressed previously that I genuinely did not see how such public exchanges advanced agreement between us or could be reconciled with real desire for agreement. I therefore regretted and deplored issuance of a public statement by his side and hoped that they would reconsider it.

46. I said however if it was their decision to issue such statement I was perfectly willing that public judge as to which of us was genuinely willing to renounce force and willing to seek peaceful settlement. I entirely willing let public judge which side was in fact obstructing issuance of meaningful statement between us.

47. Wang said he felt all these points I just raised had been concretely answered by December 1 draft their side. They had given much discussion to these points in our previous meetings. Therefore he did not think it necessary for him to repeat all views he had advanced previously.

48. Wang said their intent and attitude is quite clear and definite. They had accepted proposal I had put forward to effect that we make declaration between us as first step in actual settlement. This first step, as we have characterized it, is expression of determination of two sides to settle disputes peacefully without resort to force. And merits of practical disputes might be left for settlement at next step. There was nothing ambiguous in it and there was nothing hidden which could not be brought out for public scrutiny.

49. Wang said I had questioned public airing of discussion and I had termed it as not advancing our talks. However if discussion was to go on in same manner as we were, how could anyone expect to make any advances in talks? They believe public would be able make fair judgment between positions of two sides. He had nothing further and if I had nothing further he had another matter to bring up.

50. Wang said their attention had again been called to fact that Chinese nationals being prevented from returning. At last meeting aggregate number Chinese nationals being prevented returning was 34 persons. Today he would like to raise cases three more persons.

51. Wang said case of Mr. Tan Wen, which he would later present to me, could serve as example to illustrate Chinese in U.S. Mr. Tan applied permission to return ever since 1950 but U.S. had refused permission. In August 1955, that is when our talks got underway, Tan again applied return and wrote his family after application that he expected permission to be granted end last year. However, wrote again last January that unable return in February and had to wait another two months. Mr. Tan said in letter that he was among first to apply to return and also handed in his applications most frequently, however he was unable to return up to present time. This specific case of Mr. Tan has increased their concern over Chinese in U.S. who find selves in same situation.

52. Wang said during talks I had repeatedly assured him that Chinese in U.S. free to return and that U.S. was not offering obstructions to their departure and that no procedures of whatever sort have been set up to prevent their departure. However case of Tan Wen and latest facts about his failure to return had revealed situation that U.S. was not consistent in its actions and its words. From treatment of Tan, how could it be said that U.S. was carrying out its obligations under agreement?

53. Wang said it was clearly stated in agreement that parties to agreement would facilitate return of nationals and that no obstructions should be offered to their departure. Mr. Tan never violated any law of U.S. and what was reason he encountering repeated obstructions against his return?

54. Wang said in addition to case of Tan, and they had raised many similar cases recently, it was evident Chinese still encounter obstruction in their return. This situation necessitated that I give accounting in each these individual cases.

55. Wang said in addition to this category he had raised repeatedly question of Chinese who were in prison in U.S. and they were still awaiting reply from my side. (Handed over list, given in following telegram).

56. I said he seemed to have considerable detailed information on Mr. Tan. Wang’s statement here said that Tan again put in application in August 1955 and expected receive permission return at end of year. I would like to ask for details from his correspondence with Wang—to whom did he make application? I would also like ask what his correspondence indicated he applied for—that is, he applied for what? I would also like ask whether Wang’s correspondence with him indicated whether Tan communicated with Indian Embassy and if not, why not, if he felt he being obstructed in leaving?

57. Wang said it was stated clearly in list that Tan had applied with INS. From statement in his letters, could be seen that Tan made repeated applications and had not given up hope. He first indicated that he expected permission would be granted by end last year, but wrote again he expected permission in February and then his departure further delayed by two months. Although he still hopeful that he will one day be granted permission to return, he has been delayed so long. This is situation, so far as they knew, regarding Tan to which their attention has been called. It precisely because they cannot understand nature obstruction against his return that Wang has requested me make inquiry.

58. I said I was trying to get some facts on this, these statements that he gave me here were utterly inexplicable. He does not need apply to anybody for return, I had said that over and over again, neither he nor any other alien in U.S. Wang did not have to accept my word on that. Indian Embassy or anyone familiar with U.S. could confirm it.

59. Wang said this was not individual case of Tan. Tan was only one example. I had requested facts about Tan. If I required any facts about Americans in China then they had these facts. But Tan was now in U.S. and how could they give me facts about his being obstructed?

60. Wang said I had stated that it not necessary for Tan apply INS, however as he had told me Tan precisely refused permission by INS. If I myself unaware this situation, how could I expect him to understand it.

61. I said U.S. INS does not deny or grant permission any alien leave U.S. He was one who was alleging this not correct and that Tan being obstructed. I was asking for some facts—he evidently had close communication with Tan—on how he being obstructed. Statements made here made no sense whatsoever in light of what everybody knows about departure aliens from U.S. This was similar to allegations made in many these other cases.

62. I said I could not consider it as slightest evidence U.S. was obstructing departure any of these. Because I knew facts quite to contrary. I also asked why, if Tan did think he being obstructed, he had not communicated with Indian Embassy in accordance with procedures we had established. If he communicated with Wang and Wang’s authorities, it clear he able freely communicate with Indian Embassy if he desired do so.

63. Wang said he wanted clarify that Tan’s correspondence was between him and family and not between him and Wang’s authorities. It because they did not know actual facts about his being obstructed in U.S. that they had asked me inquire and look into his case. If statement given by me were true that any aliens in U.S. including Chinese were free to leave or enter the U.S. without application INS or any other U.S. authority; if it true INS does not set up any procedures controlling exit of foreign nationals, if this true then action taken by INS against Chinese in U.S. defy reason and that is something they request me to investigate and correct this state of affairs. I have to tell INS to stop all such illegal acts because such illegal and wild acts taken by INS are in violation of agreement between us on return of civilians.

64. I said first let me say I did not say that U.S. INS does not exercise control over entry of aliens to U.S. I have continued to refer only to departure of aliens from U.S.

65. Wang said case of Tan not one of entry U.S. but one of departure U.S.

66. I said that was right and I was discussing it in those terms. In case of Tan and these other cases he had continued to make vague statements regarding their being prevented from departure. It utterly incredible me, if there were any factual basis any these cases that at least one person would not have called attention his case to Indian Embassy in accordance procedures we established for handling this. I simply could not give credence to these charges in view lack any factual evidence. I satisfied there was no factual basis.

67. I said facts show that not single case been called to attention my government in accordance agreed announcement but that Chinese have steadily and regularly been traveling from my country to his country. According best information available to me, at least 114 Chinese had arrived in his country since beginning talks. 67 arrived between September 10, date our announcement and December 20. Since December 20, a period during which not single American had been released from his country, my information was that at least 35 Chinese had arrived his country. I had no way knowing how many others might have arrived.

68. I said as for situation regarding Americans his country, I could only conclude we were going backwards. Subsequent to September 10 his authorities on October 27 announced release of two American prisoners. Three weeks later on November 17 his authorities announced release of three Americans. About one month later on December 20 his authorities announced release of one American. This was average of about one every two weeks. More than ten weeks have passed since December 20 and in that time no American been released. I had extremely difficult time reconciling this with agreement September 10 which specifically covered these Americans and reconciling this with a desire to bring about improvement in our relations or with a desire to obtain genuinely constructive achievements in these talks. It certainly bore no relationship to facts with regard to free return of Chinese to his country.

69. Wang said I had made comparison between number of Americans who departed China and number of Chinese who departed U.S. and had stated that during period since our announcement made on September 10 that 102 Chinese had left U.S. Although this number of Chinese had come out from U.S. even this number very unsatisfactory to them. If we made calculation of proportion of people released he could show me that of Americans in category of criminals alone 27 of 41 been released. Number of released comprises two-thirds of number of people who were in prison and in addition this number criminal offenders released, there are Americans in other categories who have left China. These are 16 in number. And it can be seen that almost overwhelming majority of American criminal offenders have been released. If we take Chinese students alone, putting aside question other Chinese nationals in U.S., we may take figure of 5,000 for these Chinese students. What would number of 102 students who have come out of U.S. compare with total of 5,000—what ratio would it make? From this proportion it is quite clear as to whether more Americans left China or more Chinese left U.S. Is not this clear indeed?

70. I said proportion proper to talk about is that of those desiring to return. There was still not slightest evidence any Chinese desiring return was being prevented from doing so. Now, almost six months since September 10 announcement, both know there are 13 desiring return who are still being prevented from doing so although it was said that they could do so expeditiously.

71. Wang said I had talked of proportion of people who desired return. The 37 whose cases he had raised with me in these meetings were exactly people who desired return. They have not as yet gotten any reply from me concerning those who desire return but are in prison in U.S. He still awaiting my answer concerning situation Chinese imprisoned U.S.

72. I said I had told him again and again any Chinese in U.S. who feels obstructed was entirely free communicate Indian Embassy.

73. Wang said this was only one aspect of question, the other was U.S. obligation give accounting these Chinese in prison.

74. I said U.S. Government has obligation faithfully and fully carry out provisions agreed announcement. This U.S. has done and will continue do.

75. Wang said if those people who desire return still prevented doing so and unable return, he could not consider U.S. Government carrying out fully obligation under announcement.

76. I asked whether next Thursday March 8 was satisfactory for next meeting. Wang agreed.

77. After we stood up to leave, I asked if he would send me copy of their public statement. Wang said that if it were made he would do so. I asked if he could give any indication as to time. Wang said he had none.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/3–156. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.