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

661. Telegram 2103 from Geneva¹

Geneva, June 20, 1956, 7 p.m.

2103. From Johnson.

1. I opened 51st today with prepared statement:

A. Before do anything else morning, think we have misunderstanding clear up. View your surprising statements last meeting, feel necessary explain once more, as clearly can, action my government intends take regard alien Chinese prison my country.

B. Let me start with situation any individual Chinese prisoner before my government decided apply such cases provisions agreed announcement. Like any other convicted criminal my country, he serving sentence fairly openly handed down in court of law. Like any other criminal, he received fair lenient treatment as matter course. Like any other criminal, he could normally look forward being released, or paroled, well advance full term sentence; this being accordance standard practice my country paroling prisoners good behavior. As far as return your country concerned, any such Chinese prisoner was entirely free do so, after release. This was situation alien Chinese prisoner my country before agreed announcement even thought of.

C. About December last year, you began make issue Chinese prisoners my country. Without citing specific cases, you alleged my country violating provisions announcement respect such prisoners. In March, your government even went far as make implication in public statement. In subsequent meetings you became more and more explicit asserting Chinese prisoners my country covered by announcement.

D. I recalled your previous meetings reasons why announcement, light our discussions last August September leading up its issuance, obviously was not intended apply ordinary criminals serving sentences my country. However, controversy this question now beside point. Point is you demanded application announcement Chinese prisoners my country. Point is, you were using this demand basis charging US violation announcement. Order remove any possible basis such charges, my government decided apply provisions announcement every alien Chinese prisoner US. My government, that is to say, decided take measures, firstly, making it possible each such prisoner desiring do so return his country expeditiously.

E. At last meeting you appeared object my government’s taking these measures, insisting instead each prisoner be required finish term prison, and only after finishing term or being paroled, be allowed return his homeland. As have said, this always been policy my country respect Chinese—or for that matter any alien prisoners. If words announcement are have any meaning at all as applied prisoners, they should obviously mean any prisoner desiring return can do so promptly, without waiting expiration sentence or completion normal parole procedures.

F. Secondly my government decided take measures accordance with and even going beyond letter announcement respect third party arrangement. Order should be no question by anyone but that each alien Chinese prisoner US had been fully informed his opportunity choose prompt deportation your country, my government’s authorities not only informed each prisoner individually this opportunity; it also offered let representatives Indian Embassy interview each prisoner order confirm his free choice.

G. At last meeting your rejection this proposition particularly vehement and especially difficult for me understand. Third party arrangement not only part announcement, but originally suggested by you. Indian Embassy not only designated in announcement perform functions mentioned therein in US but this designation originally suggested by you.

H. In fact, if didn’t utterly fail comprehend your remarks last meeting, left with conclusion you objecting my government’s application any or all provisions announcement Chinese prisoners my country. You object measures designed permit their expeditious return your country; you object their being assured access third party. In short, you apparently want my government continue treat them exactly as it treated them even before announcement ever thought of.

I. Find great difficulty reconciling this apparent position with your previous demands announcement be applied prisoners my country. Hope you can clear this up for me this morning.

2. Wang noted my remarks on Chinese nationals prison US contained several deliberate distortions well as number outright sophistries. He could not agree these remarks. They had always considered announcement covered return Chinese students, other Chinese nationals, well as Chinese imprisoned US. My claim agreement only covered part nationals not conformity actual fact.

3. Wang said we had very clear understanding on question how nationals would exercise right return respective countries. What they asked was both sides carry out agreement faithfully and not offer any obstruction. Their side has precisely carried out agreement. It their consistent policy adopt measures on their own in accordance their law in settling question return American nationals China. Matter fact since talks began, of 40 American offenders 29 already exercised right return. As result measures adopted government, majority American prisoners China already exercised right return.

4. Wang said on their hand they always been concerned with Chinese imprisoned my country. They raised question Chinese prisoners far back as last December but I for long time gave no accounting. That was in past cause great dissatisfaction their part. Nevertheless, Wang had expressed appreciation last meeting on learning of action my government handing over names Chinese prisoners Indian Embassy. Although in making remark he pointed out list not complete, and also stated he could not agree with arbitrary characterization by my side of American prisoners China as political prisoners while Chinese imprisoned US common criminals.

5. Wang could only consider as arbitrary my assertion he had agreed prisoners should not be expeditiously returned but should finish terms sentences. He strongly rejected this remark.

6. Wang said what they objected to was means adopted my government bring Indian Embassy into screening Chinese prisoners. Chinese imprisoned my country had great difficulty expressing free will while in our jails. Could express free will only after my government taken measures on own leading to release from prison. That why he requested at last meeting my government adopt measures on own regard Chinese prisoners in order these prisoners may be set free and after release that no obstruction be placed in way their return. However, in my opening Wang found no indication my government prepared take such measures. I had only repeated empty remarks that if some person desired do so he able return, if we going be satisfied with empty remarks that either Chinese nationals who not committed offenses, or Chinese who had committed offenses could return if they desired, and my government not prepared adopt measures on its own create conditions so these people could actually return he could only consider all my promises and remarks empty.

7. Wang said it quite true Indian Embassy been entrusted by Wang’s government take care interests their nationals my country. Indian Embassy asked my government provide complete list Chinese nationals my country to enable Embassy check whether those Chinese desired return. However, my government refused.
Indian Embassy requested my government make public statement clarifying question Taiwan entry. My government did not comply this request. Present question is whether US Government will accord every facility Indian Embassy to expedite performance its functions. However, they could not agree to Indian Embassy’s being led into damaging trap.

8. Wang said they still as always concerned over situation Chinese nationals my country including imprisoned. However, question their return depended on my government’s adopting measures enabling them. They could not consider satisfactory my government’s simply making remarks that somebody could return without adopting measures on own enable them.

9. Wang said thanks to measures taken his government on its own majority American nationals their country returned.
What corresponding measures was my government prepared adopt?

10. I said Wang had spoken of Indian Embassy being led into what he termed damaging trap. I sure, I didn’t understand what Wang had in mind. Had tried explain honestly and straightforwardly as could exactly what we doing. Certainly no trap or trick our part intended or even possible. Our whole thought in inviting Indian Embassy participate in measures was to give them every assurance these measures being honestly carried out.

11. I said we had confidence integrity good faith Indian Embassy and its representatives. As he suggested they assume third power role in US, I had assumed his government also felt same way about them.

12. I asked Wang let me make this simple as could. As pointed out this morning Chinese alien prison my country, same any other alien or American for that matter, could always expect lenient considerate treatment and in normal course events could expect release prior expiration sentence. When he completed sentence could, same any other alien, leave US for any destination his choice. That perfectly normal situation Chinese aliens even before announcement. Announcement states respective nationals desiring return shall be enabled expeditiously do so. If that to have meaning for prisoners certainly could not leave them in same situation existing prior its issuance, else what point issuing?

13. I said had explained we now applied our interpretation announcement alien Chinese prisoners US. We applied plain words announcement. Under announcement there two factors involved. First was whether or not person desired return. Second whether not he able expeditiously. Far as Chinese US concerned who not prison measures long ago taken permit any all them return who desire. As I many times explained here they did not have to express desire. Did not have to apply anyone. All had to do was go. They thus able freely indicate desire by acts.

14. I said situation prisoners admittedly little different. How could prisoner definitively express desire? We had had no evidence or indication any them did desire. However, in order there be no possible doubt prisoner understood choices freely open him I had explained Wang measures we taking inform prisoners those choices. Prisoner’s choice was to look forward early release prior finishing sentence in normal course events on commutation sentence, parole, time off good behavior.

15. I said as matter fact might incidentally mention since list prisoners given Indian Embassy two prisoners mentioned therein already thus been released normal course events.

16. I continued if on other hand prisoner desired rather return immediately Wang’s country he also free do so. Choice was did prisoner desire await release normal course events or did he desire immediately return Wang’s country? It very simple straightforward choice. We could independently put choice each prisoner ourselves and act accordance what he told us. However, to give Wang further assurances our good faith, we invited Indian Embassy participate in order it could determine for self wishes of prisoner.

17. I said Wang had spoken of screening. Did not know exactly what he meant or had in mind this regard. I never thought of it these terms at all. I thought of it only in terms Indian Embassy being able satisfy self each prisoner freely made own choice.

18. I said Wang had spoken great difficulty of prisoners expressing free will. Frankly didn’t see what difficulty prisoner had very simple decision. Able state decision presence representative third power. Thus first question as I pointed out was whether man desired return. These were measures we had taken determine and confirm that desire. Had previously told Wang if prisoner did desire return action would promptly be taken permit him. Further action this matter awaited reply Indian Embassy our invitation.

19. I said Wang also asserted list prisoners given Indian Embassy not complete. Did not know on what he based assertion, but could assure him not correct.

20. Wang was sure had made points quite clear both last meeting and morning and did not think necessary make further explanations. As he had said although list handed over by my government incomplete they still appreciated that action my government. Would not agree US inviting Indian Government participate screening Chinese prisoners. If my government had true desire fully carry out agreement and assist Indian Embassy performance its functions regarding return Chinese why was it my government so far refused give complete list Chinese nationals US so could make check determine whether nationals desired return?

21. Wang said it matter common sense nobody liked staying in jail. It also matter course every person in prison desired early release. If Chinese prisoners allowed early release and freely return, he would be only too glad receive that information. However, whether prisoners could do so depended on measures adopted my government their cases. Wang had nothing further this matter morning.

22. I continued be puzzled Wang’s attitude. He continued speak list all Chinese US being given Indian Embassy so could check their desire return. Regarding those not prison no such check necessary. All they had do was return. We gave Indian Embassy list those in prison so could check on whether they desired return. Yet Wang said did not want Indian Embassy make such check. Found this impossible understand.

23. Wang said this very simple. Obstructive measures my government in past had left feeling of terror in minds Chinese US. They asked for complete list Chinese nationals simply because many Chinese still not informed about announcement. That made check necessary and desirable.

24. I said it certainly strange if any Chinese US felt what Wang called terror about departing US, that at least one such case not come to attention Indian Embassy and that Indian Embassy not called it our attention.

25. I said not only had there not been single such case but Chinese continued freely depart US return his country. Since last information this point I knew definitely of 17 additional who returned Wang’s country making total 177 definitely known since August 1 last year. All this certainly did not indicate any obstruction or so-called terror part Chinese my country returning Wang’s country if they desired do so. According public statements made by Indian Embassy some Chinese my country had communicated with it concerning various matters. To best my knowledge none these communications had involved alleged obstruction.

26. Wang said fact Indian Embassy not yet raised instance obstruction did not mean actually no obstruction part my government. He had given me names 55 persons who obstructed. Fifty-three them not yet returned. Among 103 persons whose names I gave him previously 28 still not returned. Such were facts.

27. It seemed to me even Wang’s own statements simply substantiated fact Chinese steadily returning. If any them felt obstructed they entirely free communicate Indian Embassy.

28. Wang said if I had no further remarks this problem he would like speak on proper question.

29. Wang continued from prepared statement my government’s statement June 12 called for following comments. In statement my government stated my side had adopted draft proposed by Wang December 1 except for two revisions and Wang’s side not only rejected own draft but advanced new conditions. Must be pointed out although in outward appearance we made only two revisions these two revisions caused qualitative change in draft. This again proved so far there not been slightest change in stubborn persistence my side calculated freeze present status quo Taiwan area and refuse negotiate to improve situation.

30. Wang said second paragraph my April 19 still retained ambiguous words about not resorting threat use force Taiwan area elsewhere, while failing make specific provision on holding Sino-American conference Foreign Ministers. Apparent aim my side doing so was require them accept present state my country’s occupation Taiwan intervention liberation by China its coastal islands while indefinitely protracting talks.

31. Wang said in previous meetings he already made quite clear position their side was either we agree general statement on peaceful settlement disputes China-US without resorting use force or if it desired mention Taiwan area specifically statement must also provide holding Sino-American conference Foreign Ministers. Their May 11 provided for seeking ascertaining practical feasible means including holding Sino-American conference Foreign Ministers within prescribed time for settlement Sino-American disputes. It thus took full account views my side and did so with view reaching agreement acceptable both. This represented step forward and could not be called retrogression, however distorted.

32. Wang said addition of phrase “without prejudice pursuit, etc. or inherent right, etc.” to preamble my April 19 would mean that on China’s territory Taiwan well as any other area where US intended carry out its aggression US could continue its policy aggression and would have so-called right self-defense while doing so. He must seriously state on China’s territory there no room talk about so-called American right self-defense nor could right self-defense be permitted in any way justify policy aggression. Their May 11 set forth principle mutual respect territorial integrity sovereignty non-interference internal affairs, which reasonable and conformity Charter UN. There no possible basis for US object them. Hence he considered if we desired reach agreement on announcement US should not try distort May 11.

33. I said he had spoken of what he termed my “stubborn persistence”. Would freely admit it stubborn persistence in attempting assure our differences not lead war but settled only by peaceful negotiations. Would admit to stubborn persistence in attempting reach agreement on declaration saying this unambiguously without qualification or time limit. Would admit stubborn persistence in insisting such declaration clearly apply to what we both agreed was most serious dispute Taiwan area.

34. I said Wang’s statement morning well as previous statements made clear he apparently did not consider his Dec 1 applied dispute Taiwan area. This one of very ambiguities that draft I attempted clear up in my April 19. If there agreement with me on unambiguous unqualified untime-limited declaration on renunciation force including Taiwan area well as elsewhere, would be no grounds for rejecting my April 19. I regretted he not yet willing accept this simple straightforward proposal so we could resume progress talks.

35. Wang said on his part already made large progress. Progress will depend on attitude US Government towards this entire problem. Wang hoped at next meeting I would be able make remarks furthering progress.

36. I replied I had nothing more morning. Wang suggested we meet Thursday 28. I agreed.

Gowen

Note: Mr. Waddell’s office(FE) notified 6/22/56 12:20PM. EMB (CWO)

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/6–2056. Confidential; Limit Distibution.