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

563. Letter 37 from McConaughy to Johnson¹

Letter No. 37

Washington, April 6, 1956

Dear Alex:

You were probably in Paris when we sent you the wire inviting your comments on the prospective rearrangement of our renunciation of force formula. We still want your comments, although since we sent you the initial telegram, the Secretary has approved the idea and your guidance telegram for the next meeting has been dispatched. Since you will not submit the reformulation at the next meeting on April 9 but merely intimate there will be a new draft later, there is still time for us to consider your reaction.

Our thought is that the reformulation will provide a further test of Chinese Communist attitudes and will afford another token of our desire to reconcile the opposing positions. We have changed the reference to the Taiwan area so that it is no longer contiguous to the reference to the right of individual and collective self defense. We have adhered to the wording of their draft at every place where we could, and we have given them a peg on which they can gracefully hang a modification of their position, if they have any desire to come to an agreement. We doubt that they will accept the new formula but we at least have something to gain tactically by introducing it, and we do not depart from our essential position. The redraft is the work of Judge Phleger. It was approved by the Secretary on the afternoon of April 4 when he reviewed the entire course of recent developments at Geneva.

While there may not be much material for new discussions in this revision, it does at least give you a little something to chew on and should take care of the meetings through the 26th of April, which is the earliest date on which Wang could give a Peiping reply to a revised draft introduced on April 19.

We told you in the guidance telegram yesterday about our decision to have I & N. S. actually ascertain if deportation would be possible in each of the 50 cases of Chinese aliens in the U.S. penitentiaries. This is quite a project, but the preliminary survey seems worth while. Enclosed is a copy of our letter requesting the survey which gives our background thinking. We are aware of your view expressed in a recent letter that deportation of Chinese prisoners would not bring about the release of the American prisoners since the detention of the Americans is linked to political demands. We agree with you that the Chinese Communists are using the American prisoners to try to extort political concessions, including a Foreign Minister’s Conference. But some of the people working on the matter at this end believe that the release of Chinese prisoners would at least give us a better club with which to hammer the Chinese Communists on the prisoner issue and might well put the Chinese Communists in dutch with even their neutralist friends if they fail to release the Americans following release of Chinese prisoners. Although you have commented at length on this matter in a recent letter to me we invited your reaction to this proposal so that we will be sure that we have your latest view on this, and also that we may have it in the official record.

I am not surprised that you discovered discrepancies in the figures given in the new Defense Department list of missing military personnel. NA discovered the same discrepancies in reviewing the figures and called them to the attention of Defense. Corrected sheets have been prepared by Defense for your book and are forwarded herewith. There is also enclosed an additional sheet with detailed information on Captain Malcolm Edens which should be filed under Tab 2 in your book.

There is enclosed a copy of the “accounting” given by the Chinese Communists in UNCMAC last February. We delayed sending it to you expecting a more detailed report from UNCMAC, but it later turned out that this was all they had. As you will see it is far from satisfactory. We have been working with Defense on an instruction to UNCMAC asking further specific questions about the accounting. This has not yet gone out due to clearance problems in Defense, but we expect it to go shortly and we will see that you get a copy. The feeling here in both State and Defense was that we should exhaust all possibilities in Panmunjom before we ask you to bring the matter up again in Geneva.

The Prisoner Book which we would like back if you do not need it is a gray loose leaf binder containing miscellaneous memoranda and other documents collected by Ed Martin when he was Prisoner Officer here. Please send it by air pouch. Dave Osborn should be familiar with it. With the increasing Congressional interest in the problem of Americans detained in Communist China, and queries as to what the Department has done about this problem in the past, we felt this book would be needed more here than in Geneva.

Mr. Robertson is having a little stomach trouble again and is supposed to be taking a rest in bed. However he is insisting on staying on the job for at least a couple of weeks. He is planning to take two weeks rest in bed around the end at this month.

It was good to get your letter No. 26. Messrs. Phleger, Robertson and Sebald read it too and we all found it of particular interest. We hope you and Pat had a good relaxing Easter weekend in Paris.

Regards and good luck,

Sincerely,

Walter P. McConaughy

Enclosures:

1. Additional Sheet for Tab 2 of Defense Book.

2. Copy of the “accounting” by Chinese Communists in UNCMAC.

3. Army Telegram No. FE 800650 from CINCUNC Tokyo.

4. Copy of letter to General Swing.

1. Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal.