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

584. Telegram 1912 to Geneva¹

Washington, April 24, 1956, 1:03 p.m.

1912. For Johnson.

Guidance for April 26 meeting.

1. You should continue to press Wang to accept our latest revision of renunciation of force declaration. Record our conviction that it meets every objection raised by Wang which has any plausibility. It fulfills every essential requirement of the situation for each side. It is cast in appropriate terms. It represents serious attempt on US part to arrive at a formulation which would take into account the views of Wang’s side concerning form as well as substance. You should strike the recurrent note that we have done our utmost to produce a draft that both sides can accept unqualifiedly and that Communists should accept it, if they are really interested in arriving at solution. We feel that the essential requirements of both sides have been thoroughly aired and that this formulation is the best solution which can be arrived at.

2. We differ from the line of reasoning advanced in your 1799 only in that we would have you urge the merits of our latest revision more insistently and put less emphasis on a challenge or an invitation to Wang to produce a new alternative of his own, if he does not like ours. While of course must remain prepared to consider any new draft which Wang might table, we do not wish to give the impression that we expect him to reject our new draft. Emphasis should be on our firm conviction that our draft is the best that can be done to meet the valid points of each side, rather than on expectation that Wang will now produce revision of his own. We are in better position with Wang rejecting our reasonable draft, than with US rejecting new Chinese Communist draft that is unacceptable, but capable of being misunderstood and misinterpreted.

3. Theme which you should enunciate repeatedly at this meeting is that any conceivable objection to our draft can only be based on unwillingness to accept fully principle of non-resort to force. If Chinese Communists are genuinely willing to make complete renunciation of force without mental reservation or purpose of evasion they can raise no valid objection to this draft. If they have not made this decision then no formulation will achieve the objective. Indispensable requirement is that Chinese Communists make unqualified resolve to give up use of force in pursuit of their objectives.

4. Your statement on detained Americans should follow established lines, but we would suggest a heightened note of insistence in your presentation. You may mention growing sense of outrage in both Houses of US Congress at continued Chinese Communist maltreatment of American citizens and premeditated and malicious failure of Chinese Communists to keep their pledge of September 10.

5. Reject emphatically Wang’s allegations that Chinese being obstructed from leaving US. Steady flow of Chinese to China mainland and fact that Indian Embassy has not cited single case of Chinese claiming obstruction is incontrovertible evidence. Wang’s assertions that Chinese unable communicate with Indian Embassy patently untrue. Embassy has announced publicly it has received inquiries from Chinese and it has paid transportation for number of Chinese returning to mainland China. If Peiping had been informed by individuals in US that their departure being obstructed this would mean Peiping was in communication with individuals, directly or indirectly, and could advise them to communicate with Indians. Absence of complaints confirms obvious fact that no obstruction exists, either in communication facilities or in departure.

6. FYI ONLY. Department mailing by registered letter copies of Agreed Announcement to all Chinese named by Wang whose addresses have been ascertained.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/4–2456. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by McConaughy and Clough; cleared in draft by Phleger and Sebald.