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

596. Letter 41 from McConaughy to Johnson¹

Letter No. 41

Washington, May 7, 1956

Dear Alex:

We were mildly surprised at the postponement of last Saturday’s meeting. We agree with you that some developments unrelated to the Geneva talks probably prompted the postponement request. The only development we can think of which might have a relationship is the Chinese Communist request for a Conference on Korea. Peiping undoubtedly is closely watching the reaction to its note of April 9. It is just possible that their tactics in pressing for a high level conference at Geneva are related to the reaction to their request for the multilateral conference on Korea. However they could hardly expect to get a reply from the 16 before the next meeting and I doubt that this is the real explanation for the delay. Incidentally Bob Murphy met with representatives of the 16 last Friday the 4th. At that time he gave them a copy of our draft note and asked for the reactions of their Governments. It was agreed that the British should present a concerted reply on behalf of the 16. The next meeting of the representatives of the 16 is to take place on Wednesday the 9th. We hope to have reactions of the Governments then. There is general agreement that no new conference should be agreed to in the present circumstances. But there is less certainty about how the handling of the NNSC problem will come out. We are sending you a copy of our draft note.

We have a single copy of the William L. White report on the treatment of American POW’s. We are trying to get another copy which we can send to you. What we have received seems rather fragmentary. It deals almost exclusively with the contrast in physical treatment of POW’s by the UN Command and by the Communists. There is little or no examination of germ warfare confessions brain washing in the Communist POW camps or the Communist subversive organization in the UN POW camps. Nor is there any adequate treatment of the exchange of prisoners following the Armistice Agreement or the illegal detention by the Communists of UNC personnel inside China after the prisoner exchange.

It is our feeling that your instructions for the meeting of last week which was never held will still be good for the meeting of May 11, barring unforeseen developments. However we will consider today and tomorrow whether any slight revision is called for.

There is enclosed a copy of a letter received by [text not declassified] the well known Chinese foreign trader and expert on tungsten, from [text not declassified] lives in New York and is now a naturalized American citizen. [text not declassified] wrote the letter from Stockholm where he was attending a Communist “International Peace Conference”. [text not declassified] is a leading industrial engineering specialist in alkalies especially caustic soda. [text not declassified] says he is not a Communist and he is satisfied that the letter was written under duress. This is a part of the general Communist campaign to induce the return of nationals, especially those who have something to contribute to the industrial and technological development plans.

Of the registered letters which we sent to Chinese mentioned by Wang, we have return receipts from 23. Four letters have been returned as undeliverable—addressee unknown. The remaining 6 have not yet been heard from. (Attached is a breakdown of the registered letters.)

Considerable pressure is being brought to bear on the Secretary at Paris by the British and others for immediate relaxation of the CHINCOM controls. Under the recent NSC decision any relaxation is to be handled on a “exceptions” basis rather than through deletions from the control lists. The problem still poses a dilemma for us.

The Hua Chiao Jih Pao in Hong Kong recently published a report that the Bureau of Civil Affairs of the Kwangtung Provincial Government was requiring families of students in the U.S. “or in other capitalistic countries” to register. We mentioned this report to the British, who queried Peiping about it and were informed by O’Neill that he had not heard of my such registration. Although we have no confirmation of the report and Hong Kong newspapers are not noted for their reliability, this would be a likely step for the Chinese Communists to take. It may foreshadow a flood of additional names from Wang Ping-nan. A copy of the report is enclosed.

I am writing you a separate letter on the proposed replacement of Osborn with Comiskey. Although the telegram tells you the whole story in essence, I will fill out the details as soon as I have a little time. The pouch is closing now.

Regards and good wishes,

Sincerely,

Walter P. McConaughy

Enclosures:

1. Letter to I & N. S. dated 5/1/56

2. Draft reply to Chinese Communist Note, April 9, 1956.

3. Breakdown of registered letters to Chinese in U. S.

4. Letter to [text not declassified] dated April 11, 1956 (English and Chinese)

5. Report published by the Hua Chiao Jih Pao in Hong Kong.

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