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

603. Telegram 1875 from Geneva¹

Geneva, May 11, 1956, 7 p.m.

1875. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 46th today with prepared statement: As he had specifically pointed out at last meeting, US in draft submitted on April 19 still required their side give up sovereignty and agree to freezing status quo Taiwan area with intention long procrastination without opening FonMins conference so as to permit US continue its policy seizure Taiwan and interference liberation offshore islands. This was what his side absolutely could not accept.

2. Wang said however taking into consideration my repeated request proposed declaration explicitly apply Taiwan area, his side willing make another effort by offering following amendment. (Here Wang read text new draft previously transmitted Mytel 1866.)

3. Wang said I would certainly notice his new draft specifically applied to Taiwan area principle of settling disputes between two countries by peaceful negotiations without resorting threat or use of force. He considered this draft had fully accommodated all reasonable portions my draft.

4. Wang said however he must very frankly point out Sino-American dispute Taiwan area must be separated from China’s internal affairs. Any attempt to interfere China’s internal affairs through ambiguous words absolutely not to be permitted.

5. Wang said since I had repeatedly indicated at last meeting US did not harbor any such intent their side therefore considered new draft should be acceptable both sides.

6. Wang said since proposed declaration now made specifically applicable Taiwan area in accordance my request, it therefore followed that seeking and ascertaining (Chinese word had sense of “determining upon”) means for solving tensions in Taiwan area must also be specified. In order forestall any possible long procrastination talks following announcement declaration without making concrete arrangements settle disputes their draft specified we should seek and ascertain practical feasible means for realization this desire including making arrangements for holding Sino-American conference FonMins within two months. He believed that if both sides shared sincere desire for settlement two months should be sufficient.

7. Wang said their draft also provides in preamble announcement declaration should not be taken as precluding principle mutual respect territorial integrity sovereignty non-interference each other’s internal affairs. This self-evident.

8. Wang said we now approaching ninth month since starting discussions second item agenda. If US really desires as repeatedly stated respect their views without requiring them abandon sovereignty or position then they considered both sides should agree new draft without delay.

9. I replied I would comment subsequently in detail on new draft. However few questions I would like ask in clarification to assist in consideration it. First, he had spoken of respect for views each other concerning nature origin our dispute Taiwan area. I would appreciate any amplification he could give on how he perceived this draft respected views US.

10. I said next I noticed that second para. as I read English translation appealed limit entire declaration to dispute between two countries Taiwan area. Instead being declaration general applicability also having specific applicability Taiwan area it seemed be now drafted in form that had applicability only Taiwan area. I would appreciate any amplification that regard, was declaration not to have applicability any dispute between us elsewhere.

11. I said I would also appreciate amplification last para. Without expressing opinion on substance—he well knew my opinion that regard—it seemed me language ambiguous. Ambiguous two respects, from my first cursory reading. With inclusion words “within two months” did it mean that whole declaration had effectiveness only two months? If agreement on practical feasible means not arrived at within two months period, did he consider remainder declaration no longer valid?

12. I said second ambiguous point, it seemed me was phrase concerning holding FonMin conf. It not clear me as this read whether this saying only practical feasible means realization common desire is holding conf Fon Mins or whether it meant to say holding of conf Fon Mins one of practical feasible means to be considered.

13. I said these were questions that immediately struck me on reading draft and I asked them not in sense of making comments on draft. It seemed me that they questions which clearly arose in interpreting and considering his draft. As clear and specific answers as he could give would be of assistance in consideration his draft. It in that sense I asked them.

14. Wang replied he considered draft submitted this morning quite clear in text. He had also made explanations various paragraphs this draft during statement this morning. He had pointed out this morning draft had taken into consideration and included those portions my opinion which reasonable. This draft represented another effort their part help our talks and arrive at agreement.

15. Wang said according to first para this text they would accord respect to sovereignty, territorial integrity US and would not attempt impair or interfere in internal affairs US. In same way they expected my country respect their rights their territorial integrity and also not to try interfere and [garble—prejudice] their internal affairs.

16. Wang said to them this para matter common sense concerning rights sovereign states. Principles this para also to be found in UN Charter specifically provided for in Charter.

17. Wang said if two countries could adopt and agree on these principles stated in first para then he should say we would thereby lay foundation for improvement relations between two countries. However such question general in extent.

18. Wang said next we come to second para. This para specifically dealt with dispute China-US Taiwan area. Today most critical issue between China-US placing them acute oppositon each other is that in Taiwan area and not any other place.

19. Wang said they believed if Taiwan question could be settled peacefully between two countries without going war then all other issues between two countries would be settled same way.

20. Wang said as to practical feasible means for realization common desire as specified last para., they believed should specify time limit for seeking these means so that any possible procrastination following announcement can be prevented. As he said in opening statement if we shared sincere desire for success discussions following announcement, would not be any delay or procrastination that regard.

21. Wang said as he repeatedly stated in course talks practical feasible means they had in mind precisely FonMin conf. between two countries. He also noted I had never in previous discussions excluded such conference from consideration. For making specific arrangements this practical feasible means, two months time certainly sufficient.

22. I replied I still not clear whether it intended that second para would have any applicability to disputes other than those Taiwan area. It seemed me as para now read there was implication with respect disputes other than those Taiwan area principle of renunciation force and settlement by peaceful negotiation might not be applicable.

23. I said I also still not clear as to interpretation applicability of declaration—whatever rest of it meant—if at end two months agreement not been reached. If agreement not reached in two-month period or if settlement entirely satisfactory them not reached in FonMins meeting or this meeting or any other meeting did his declaration say they would again be free at that time resume threat resort force?

24. I said I also not clear and did not think language clear on whether declaration was stating it already been determined between us FonMins conf only practical feasible means. For example last part sentence “to make specific arrangements”—specific arrangements for what? For FonMins conf? For seeking and ascertaining means for realization common desire? Without expressing opinion at moment, it seemed me language very ambiguous as to what it actually did mean. If I had difficulty understanding it, certainly others would have much more difficulty.

25. Wang replied as he saw it my question concerning second para draft already been answered. As I had previously repeatedly asked question whether peaceful settlement disputes between two countries included dispute Taiwan area therefore present draft had precisely answered my question. In his opening statement he had said I would notice new draft specifically applied to Taiwan area principle of settling disputes by peaceful negotiation without resorting threat use force. He thought this sufficiently clear.

26. Wang said with regard third para on attainment practical feasible means, if we agreed on principle settling disputes Taiwan area without resort threat use force against each other then it followed practical feasible means realizing this principle must be sought. If we failed seek find such practical feasible means as specified declaration what would be use making declaration at all?

27. Wang said this para clearly says we should seek practical feasible means and these means included holding Sino-American FonMins. Text this para quite clear. As to specific arrangements referred to this para they meant arrangements for such conference—time, place, how it would be arranged. This was position their side which they made clear over over again in course deliberations. That was their understanding of practical feasible means referred to here.

28. Wang said nevertheless he would also be ready listen me if I had other better practical feasible means in mind.

29. I replied I just wanted make one more comment on his statement. He had often in past and again this morning talked of procrastination and necessity avoiding procrastination and attempt at freezing situation Taiwan area.

30. I said I just wanted note it US which last October proposed there be renunciation force specifically applicable Taiwan area as elsewhere so genuine peaceful negotiations could be undertaken. It ambiguous attitude Wang’s govt. had thus far taken with respect really renouncing use force Taiwan area that had prevented undertaking such discussions.

31. I said I would study his draft and comment in detail next meeting.

32. Wang replied he could not agree with remarks I made just now. It matter fact their side at session October 21 offered concrete draft proposed declaration on renunciation force, it not US which took this first initiative. If US had genuinely shared desire their side make this declaration it would been made long ago, it would been made last year, instead of carrying discussion over to present. Present draft another important effort their part to make discussions success and he did not want see any further delay. They hoped we able adopt this draft and reach agreement speedily.

33. Wang said however he very willing listen any positive constructive remarks had to make next meeting with regard this draft.

34. I said if Wang had nothing further that matter I would like note 18 more Chinese arrived Hong Kong April 30 enroute Wang’s country. This made total 148 we know of that arrived by ship Hong Kong enroute his country since August 1 last year. It been almost five months now since [garble] American been released his country. It hard me see how his authorities could expect world believe they carrying out commitment Sept 10 last year, regarding Americans when facts so clearly spoke otherwise.

35. I said my govt intends faithfully carry out pledge made our agreed announcement. At same time we expected his govt do likewise. It clearly not doing so.

36. I said I had spoken many times effects this having my country. If his authorities really seeking improve atmosphere surrounding talks and relations between two countries situation must be corrected.

37. Wang replied I had said number Chinese now returned his country but these Chinese should been permitted return long ago. Of 49 Chinese whose names he given me except one who already returned they had no information on remaining 48.

38. Wang said he able tell me any ordinary American civilian now China can return my country any time he desires. If they not now returned it simply because they not have desire return now. They could not force them leave country or deport them because they not breached Chinese law. As to question persons in prison during discussions last December he requested me make investigation Chinese imprisoned US. However nearly half year passed without my giving him any information on them which he regretted very much. Certainly I could not tell him that persons imprisoned US did not desire return his country.

39. Wang said if I concerned about Americans imprisoned in China then must first all give them such information as actually how many Chinese now imprisoned by my govt US. He could tell me very frankly if US refused give accounting Chinese imprisoned US, US had no right mention question Americans in prison his country.

40. Wang said he had said my govt not satisfied with situation Americans imprisoned in China. He could tell me his govt, his country, his people even more dissatisfied with situation his compatriots imprisoned in US.

41. I asked what Americans we were talking about last September if not about those Americans detained their prisons. We were not talking about Americans in abstract, we talking about specific Americans and both us knew it. There was certainly no doubt between us that his authorities were committing selves permit those (repeat those) Americans return expeditiously US. This they had not done.

42. Wang said question we discussed was question return civilians both countries and this dealt with in very clear terms and words our agreement. Agreement did not speak about particular category civilians agreement covered all civilians. They expected US implement agreement accordance its terms.

43. I said I had nothing further and asked if next Thursday 17th satisfactory. Wang agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/5–1156. Confidential; Limit Distribution.