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

550. Telegram 1668 from Geneva¹

Geneva, March 22, 1956, 10 p.m.

1668. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 41st meeting saying statement I made last meeting entirely unsatisfactory. He gave only points to lack sincerity my side to reach agreement proposed declaration. One would not fail see it was attempt my part by distorting statement he made March 1 to evade reply his question as to which of two drafts his side I prepared accept.

2. Wang said at that meeting I even termed his proposal for FonMins conference a prerequisite and war-like ultimatum, such assertion entirely unfounded. Exactly contrary my allegation, FonMin conference has been accepted throughout world as proven means resolving international disputes. Their insistence FonMins conference is manifestation their sincere desire peaceful settlement disputes. However, in light my unjustified insistence confusing international disputes and matters China’s internal affairs as well as US intent continue seizure Taiwan and offshore islands, it clear it exactly my side which making threats and ultimata.

3. Wang said recently for instance Chief Operations FEAF Maj General Hunter Harris known to have declared that in event outbreak fighting Matsus, joint air support would be out of question (apparent intent of Wang was to say, “would be unquestioned”). His revelation amounts to declaration to Chinese people that US prepared use force against China. That is another flagrant example of war clamoring. Against this he must lodge serious protest. If my side will not promptly stop such provocative actions, situation could only be interpreted attempt disrupt talks and grave consequences must be borne entirely my side.

4. Wang said I had also said at March 1 meeting I found hard reconcile his statement that meeting with his previous position. This again distortion fact. After 21 sessions between us could it be possible position their side this regard not been amply clear? Was it not consistent stand their side to insist removal self-defense clause and to categorically reject any attempt interject China’s internal affairs into negotiations or make them subject negotiations between us? It consistent also with their insistence on FonMins conference. As regards their proposal FonMins conference, he been stressing on more than one occasion that without such conference no way to carry out declaration and declaration would consequently become scrap paper.

5. Wang said in order reach agreement speedily on declaration, two drafts which been put forward by their side were exclusively fair and reasonable proposals. Which of these two drafts was I willing accept? This was the one question to which their side continued seek answer from me.

6. In response, I said as I told him at last meeting, I felt position embodied his govt’s statement of March 4 and which he had set forth our meetings before and again set forth today, was only resulting dragging our talks backwards. Since Oct last year, I been trying find basis for agreement with him on declaration use force.

7. I said US had, in its obligation under UN and in its arrangements for collective self-defense in Far East as well elsewhere in world, made clear beyond question or doubt it would never initiate use force in settlement international disputes. These not only words, but been fully established by actions US. US has in past and has many times reiterated however that it will never supinely surrender to aggression or initiation of use force by others, and if other nations do use force US is determined defend itself and its allies. No statement made by any responsible spokesman US Govt has ever been contrary to this and I satisfied none ever will be.

8. I said when we came here it well known to world that one side in these discussions was threatening to initiate use force to resolve situation with which it was dissatisfied. Purpose of proposals which I had made this regard was remove overhanging threat force and make possible peaceful discussion and settlement disputes between our two countries. I thought he shared this purpose. I thought he agreed me as to general character declaration we sought. Obviously such declaration must apply unequivocally to all situations where danger resort force by one side existed. Yet he still persisted in refusing embody in such declaration statement that made clear it did apply all such situations. He refused make it clear that declaration applied precisely to that situation where threat use force been most explicit.

9. I said such declaration I thought we both agreed must not embody any prerequisite conditions. Yet their position, that they had set forth publicly and set forth our meetings here, with respect FonMins meeting I could only interpret as effort establish pre-conditions. His evasion at our last meeting and again this morning of reasonable and logical questions which I asked him in this regard only further demonstrated that this the case. I raised these questions he would recall, in order demonstrate that declaration on conditions he laid down would be entirely lacking in any meaningful content as a renunciation force.

10. I said as I pointed out our last meeting his govt seems be proposing these terms almost as ultimata. He had presented two drafts here which met his position. He said that US could choose between his two drafts. It hard to call that serious or sincere negotiation. Way to negotiation did not lie in issuance such take-it-or-leave-it positions.

11. I said in contrast his position, I withdrew previous draft of Nov 10 my side to which he objected and adopted his draft Dec 1 as basis our negotiations. At our Jan 12 meeting I embodied amendments to his draft which I considered essential to make it meaningful. He had continued to misinterpret and misrepresent intent in plain words that Jan 12 draft.

12. I said I had often said here I thought that his position was not well taken. However, if he had other thoughts on way concepts therein could be stated I would be glad listen them. I had issued no ultimatum, I had taken no take-it-or-leave it positions. I had and would continue try do my utmost to reach real agreement with him on basis honest negotiations. I did not see how he could feel that issuance ultimata such as he had again issued this morning helped in progress our talks here and in resolution tremendously important problems we called upon to deal with here.

13. I said I did not see how his govt felt that statements such as it again made March 11 were helpful to us. For example, in his govt’s March 11 statement it says my govt had forbidden Indian Embassy make announcements. I could only characterize this as willful and complete misstatement of fact. I had told him here that even if it desired do so my govt had no way prevent Indian Embassy from making announcements and had not sought do so. Anyone having slightest familiarity my country would immediately recognize absurdity this, and other such statements in March 11 statement his govt. I honestly did not see how it helped these talks. I did not believe it even accorded with genuine interests his own side. I might mention another distortion fact his March 11 statement, attempt made there to give impression I had admitted my govt’s restriction departure 32 Chinese. What purpose was served by this sort juggling of words? Again why did his govt declare that all Americans his country free to contact office UK Charge d’Affaires when we knew as matter fact then only 6 of 13 remaining persons desiring return had been permitted do so?

14. I said I had hoped it not intention his govt in issuing statements this kind to face my govt with what amounted to ultimata, to force my govt to agree his demands. I could assure him that no tactic could be more mistaken or more certain of failure. I had hoped that if this was intention his govt it had been abandoned. However, his statement this morning gave me no grounds for feeling it had done so. I would hope that by next meeting his govt would have abandoned his intention and we would be able proceed in orderly manner to discussion of declaration unequivocally and unconditionally renouncing use force. I would hope that it would enable us resume progress we seemed for time to be making, rather than be dragging us backwards where we were last October.

15. Wang said it seemed I had not made any attempt my statement this morning to answer questions he had raised previously. We knew our discussions had been dragging on quite long time, in spite fact that their side had submitted concrete proposals and in spite my statement that I had accepted their December 1 draft as basis discussions. If basis for our negotiations already existed, he saw no reason why two sides should not advance on this basis.

16. Wang said he recalled that drafts he put forward had been submitted after his side had given due consideration my views. And their drafts had undergone amendment. Their drafts also embodied views my side. Since their drafts had taken into consideration views both sides they were therefore capable of being accepted by both sides.

17. Wang said if amendments put forward by my side did not involve internal affairs of China and did not raise any prerequisite conditions, such amendments would be certainly considered by his side if reasonable and equitable. Therefore it seemed him fact we not been able so far reach agreement on declaration and even that there had been retrogression in our discussions was not fault their side but was responsibility US side.

18. Wang said I had declared that US had never intended to initiate use force in settlement international disputes and that US had not only demonstrated this intent by words but also by deeds. He might ask questions as to whether declaration made by Maj Gen Harris in an official utterance, as he had mentioned this morning, was not representative of position of US? If Maj Gen Harris did not make his declaration as spokesman of US Govt, then his revelation entirely exposed groundlessness my statement. We now in this room discussing declaration for renouncing use force. Could such war-clamoring declaration of Gen Harris help our discussions here?

19. Wang said I had referred to some points in March 11 statement by his govt. These points in their statement were not advanced without bias. They were by no means juggling of words. US could only live up to its words by taking actual actions to correct what it had done. Two drafts they had proposed could by no means be termed as any ultimatum.

20. Wang said he sure I also felt we had spent enough time this question. Discussions we been conducting on question of declaration were not discussions for sake of discussions. They must be aimed at genuine effort to reach reasonable and peaceful solution of problem. This a hope which their side continued maintain.

21. Wang said they continued hope that I would make my attitude clear about these two drafts, so that we might in long run come to agreement on this question of renunciation force. If we would work along this line we would be helping our talks forward rather than preventing any progress.

22. I said our difficulties with regard to draft—and let me say not only with regard to words of draft, but with regard understanding between us—seemed to revolve around two points primarily. First, was specific mention of Taiwan area and other was self-defense clause. He had said many times these meetings, that any declaration would cover Taiwan area. I found it completely inexplicable that he unwilling accept specific mention Taiwan area in his December 1 draft, if that were correct.

23. I said the other point—with regard self-defense clause—was that neither us would in this declaration be renouncing what we each considered to be our legitimate right of individual and collective self-defense. These were two simple and fundamental propositions.

24. I said I had given him my thought over and over again about how I thought they should be embodied in declaration. If he continued to disagree to form of words I had suggested for embodying these two thoughts I would hope that at our next meeting he would be able suggest form he would consider more desirable. I felt both thoughts were fundamental to meaningful declaration. But I had not taken hard and fast position on exactly how they should be stated. I not able think of any better way of stating them than what we had already suggested. If he had other thoughts, as I had said, I would certainly be glad listen them. I did not see how my position could be any more reasonable or show any greater desire to get ahead with this.

25. Wang said with regard two points I had mentioned, namely specific mention Taiwan area and self-defense clause, he had already made his position adequately clear and did not think necessary him to repeat his previous statements. He must however remind me that our discussions which we been conducting should be directed to seeking reasonable and peaceful solution disputes between our two countries. There would be entirely no meaning for conducting these talks if they were to allow US to achieve design of continuing seizure of Taiwan by any formula or any way. If US should in any way still cling to illusion that his side might in any way concede or capitulate to this position my side it would be futile.

26. Wang said as regards mentioning of Taiwan in our declaration he should say that this was precisely what they had done in their draft of October 27. They had asked me to choose from two drafts of their side. If I were really concerned with mentioning Taiwan area, then why not accept their draft October 27.

27. Wang said I had said I would be ready listen and consider any thoughts he might have. His thoughts were very simple. As he had said they have two drafts. I might choose either these two. He also hoped at our next meeting I would be able make choice from these two drafts so that our talks would move forward. If I had no other matters at hand he would like raise another matter with me.

28. Reading from prepared but handwritten statement Wang continued. He must lodge serious protest against my side over outrage of my authorities in causing death of Chinese student Mr. Daniel Pao. Pao went to US in 1948 study civil engineering at University of Florida. He applied return after receiving master’s degree 1950. However my authorities refused him permission and put him under surveillance. This was an overwhelming pressure on his mind. In May 1952 in order strengthen surveillance over him my authorities forcibly sent him sanatorium on pretense his contracting TB. Two months later he mysteriously died obviously he died as result persecution of him by my authorities.

29. Wang said I had often repeated in our meetings pledge that my side had never persecuted Chinese nationals. But no amount sophistry could cover up fact such persecution. He must again demand my side promptly stop such wanton persecution against Chinese nationals and give responsible account death Mr. Pao.

30. Wang said next he would also appreciate any information about these Chinese students and nationals he had asked me to make investigation of and if there any information available he would be ready listen to it. Also he continued await reply from me about status Chinese in US prisons.

31. I said I wondered what extent his government was willing go in attempt make these absurd allegations regarding Chinese in US in order attempt confuse people regarding their failure release people they said they would release on September 10 last year. His statement regarding Mr. Pao apparently came down allegation that US maintains institutions called sanatoriums where we liquidate people for reasons which are not clear. I had heard many allegations concerning my country over years but I must say this was new one. Liquidation of people or their execution without public and due process of law was something that happily not known my country, contrary situation in other countries with other forms government.

32. I said simply on basis information he had given regarding Pao it appeared very simple case of somebody who contracted TB, was sent to one of sanatoriums which maintained throughout US for treatment this disease, and unfortunately he did not recover. To jump from that to statement that he obviously died of persecution was conclusion that even most gullible person knowing anything about my country could not accept.

33. I said I had not brought into our conversations here what I could only call the barbarous treatment that Americans imprisoned his country had undergone. People who had died in his prisons and who we had only heard of years later, people who had emerged from his prisons broken in mind and body, people who will never forget the terror, the physical treatment they received—I had not discussed them here, but if it his desire do so I could certainly well do so. These not been isolated experiences but been common experiences not only Americans but of people other nationalities. However, when we came here to begin these discussions I said I did not want engage recriminations with regard past but would look to future and I continue do so.

34. I said one of best and most recent examples I knew of way his authorities carrying out commitment they made was that exemplified in case Father Houle. He would recall I specifically mentioned his case October 20. We had now learned that on October 30, just ten days later, this man who had been under arrest since 1953 was finally tried and sentenced long term imprisonment. It hard call this permitting his expeditious return to US. Over three months have now passed without single one Americans, who subjects our September 10 announcement being permitted return. It dismal record.

35. Wang said he must say I had again failed give proper answer to what he raised. Allegations made regarding Americans in China entirely without factual basis. Even in these unjustified allegations my side I had not been able cite single instance in which measures against law-abiding Americans his country had been taken. I not been able cite any instance in which people different skin color had been put to death without any legal procedures. Such barbarous act against humanity could never happen his country.

36. Wang said yet cases unhappy Mr. Liu mentioned previously and Mr. Pao whose name told me this morning were examples how people could be turned into madmen or dead men. I had said this was something new me. He would not say it anything new, but would say it frightening revelation. It extremely inhuman act. It most barbarous act. It immense insult against civilized people. They shocked when heard this incident. Pao did not die any disease, but died result obstructions and persecution against him. It be unconceivable if U.S. did not correct this act.

37. I said I willing let world judge. I had nothing more this morning.

38. Wang said world will know in whose country most barbarous outrages have taken place.

39. I asked if he had anything more. He said no. I suggested next meeting Thursday March 29. He agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/3–2256. Confidential; Limit Distribution.