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

524. Telegram 1611 from Geneva¹

Geneva, March 8, 1956, 5 p.m.

1611. From Johnson.

1. Two-hour 25 minute meeting this morning with no (repeat no) change.

2. Wang was obviously marking time and refused to respond to or be drawn into discussion on renunciation.

3. In context making points Deptel 1718 repeated Karachi Tosec 13, I also characterized his position at last meeting and CHICOM March 4 statement as constituting retrogression from apparent previous position and stated my understanding their present position was they refused to renounce force even temporarily with respect Taiwan area unless US first agrees to Foreign Minister meeting and that this logically leads question what new conditions and prerequisites would be presented in connection with Foreign Minister meeting, that is, would they consider renunciation binding only up to and during such meeting and if meeting did not result complete concession their views would they then consider themselves free use force? Such position is complete perversion renunciation force principle and glaring reversion to war-like ultimata and holding negotiations under threat by one party of initiating hostilities in absence peaceful surrender by other party. Contrasted with US position particularly as set forth in January 21 and March 6 statements stressing last paragraph both statements.

3. Wang completely failed respond these points stating respective positions fully developed last 20 meetings and their views set forth their March 4 statement to which he had nothing to add. Hoped next meeting I would make choice between their two drafts. I hoped he would correct me if my foregoing statement their position in error.

4. I made very strong statement on implementation, characterizing situation in this field also as retrogression with CHICOM receding to same positions they held before agreed announcement both with respect Americans in China and Chinese in US. During course of give and take I said, “insofar as desires your government with respect to our talks here are concerned, policy continuing to hold 13 as political hostages can only be counterproductive”.

5. He renewed usual charges concerning US “obstruction”, repeated demand for accounting for names he had given me, and Chinese in US, and alleged interception mail from families to Chinese in US, and alleged requirement Chinese apply permanent residence or obtain Taiwan entry permits. In latter connection made and reiterated charge US interfered in Indian Embassy desire make public statement. When I replied US does not have to agree or disagree to Indian Embassy making any public statement it desires within proper sphere its activities diplomatic mission, he said “atmosphere here appears to be somewhat different that in Washington”.

6. In rebuttal my continued stress on 13 he said if they covered by agreed announcement Chinese US prisons were covered and renewed his demand for “accounting”.

7. Next meeting Thursday March 15.

8. Proceeding Prague tomorrow morning returning Tuesday.

Gowen

NOTE: Advance copy to FE—Mr. Waddell 5: 10 p.m., 3/8/56 CWO/FED

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/3–856. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Repeated for information Priority to Karachi for the Secretary and Robertson as telegram 7. An additional transmittal note reads: “Also request confirmation receipt and delivery Geneva’s 1611 to Secretary. If not (repeat not) delivered retransmit immediately to New Delhi.”