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

696. Telegram 135 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 9, 1956, 9 p.m.

135. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 55th meeting with prepared statement: Since opening second item we spent ten months discussing renunciation force suggested by my side their side already put forward three reasonable drafts for declaration that regard. Only because my side stubbornly clinging to demands unacceptable their side that no agreement reached. To prevent these talks from developing into meaningless stalling situation their side proposed we discuss subject of embargo raised by their side under second item. At last meeting I had indicated willingness hear their views on question embargo but remarks I made then seemed show my side doesn’t intend carry on businesslike discussion of subject and seek solution. If that is position he could only regard it as unreasonable. Their side had joined in discussing subject proposed by my side. If my side refused discuss subject proposed their side it would indeed turn these talks into unfair unequal negotiation; he hoped this not intent my side.

2. Wang now specifically suggested we first reach agreement on following lines: “In order that subject raised by Chinese side under second item agenda may be handled, both sides of these talks agree to proceed to subject of embargo and seek practical settlement.” He would now like to hear my views.

3. I replied assumption he made was apparently that there no longer any way open to us continue seek agreement on question renunciation force. While true this subject proposed by me, it subject which felt we both agreed went to very heart of basic disputes between us. It was suggested by my side as first essential step in seeking peaceful settlement those disputes. I could not but continue consider it this light. I therefore could not agree that we abandon efforts reach agreement renunciation force. If his govt were to abandon obstacles it had placed in way of reaching agreement on renunciation force declaration I was satisfied we could very readily reach agreement thereon. In our discussion up to May 11, two of us had been proceeding—very slowly, it is true—in way which could lead to agreement. He responded to my proposal of last October with draft that indicated at least partial acceptance fundamental principles proposal which I had made. This was in sense step forward, although it was largely canceled out by his attempt introduce into that draft separate matter Foreign Ministers conference as precondition for agreement on renunciation force.

4. I said with introduction my draft Nov 10, which expressed very concretely principle of renunciation force without entangling it with extraneous topics, our discussions had progressed to new stage. Three weeks later on Dec 1, he had submitted new draft. Without sacrificing his views as to desirability eventual meeting Foreign Ministers, had in his Dec 1 draft at least tacitly accepted idea our immediate task, of reaching agreement on renunciation force, should not be complicated by introduction extraneous matters. I had welcomed this draft of his side, and called it advance over previous position. In my subsequent successive efforts continue our progress towards meaningful renunciation force, I had been very careful preserve, in entirety, area agreement which his Dec 1 draft indicated had been reached between us. As he knew, my draft April 19 retained not only form but also every single word of his Dec 1 draft.

5. I continued in contrast to efforts I made to preserve area of agreement between us, his efforts since May 11 been devoted eliminating basis for progress towards meaningful declaration. He had done this by reverting to position of last October. He had attempted establish first one precondition and then another for issuance of declaration. I continue hope his govt will reconsider its present position and change its attitude so we could issue really meaningful declaration renunciation force as first and fundamental step to settlement disputes between us.

6. I said had agreed to inclusion in our discussion of what he termed trade embargo. I had no intention of going back on this agreement. My attitude toward discussion this not based on narrow procedural consideration but rather on fundamental substantive relationship of this matter to renunciation force. As I told him on November 3 and again at last meeting I entirely willing hear any views he might desire put forward with respect trade. When he did so I hoped he would amplify exactly what aspects this matter he had in mind. Last Nov 3 I had asked specific questions this regard to which he had still made no replies. I did not believe it would serve any useful purpose to make as he had in past, vague and unfounded charges against my govt in exercising its unquestioned sovereign right to control and regulate trade in whatever manner it deems in best interest of US. Let me say again very bluntly as I had at last meeting, my country did not consider there could be any advantage to it in trade where goods received in that trade could be used support use force against it. It would thus be obvious if discussion trade matters between us to be fruitful it must be clear that such use would not be made of goods received in that trade. I had stated our position on this very bluntly and very frankly not with intent of giving any offense or of engaging in fruitless argument, but rather so that he would clearly understand our position this regard and thereby contribute to constructive results our discussion. I therefore hoped he would carefully consider matter of both renunciation and trade in this light.

7. Wang agreed question issuance renunciation force declaration at heart disputes between two sides. Their patience in discussion this topic attested by ten months in which they joined with us in this discussion. His side had thus forwarded three successive drafts for making such declaration. Thus clear their sincerity in reaching such agreement couldn’t be questioned. This morning I had stated I didn’t abandon, or give up subject renunciation force. But I failed put forward any views which could eliminate obstacles in way of discussion this subject. He didn’t think it would contribute to progress to reiterate old arguments which had been put forward in our discussions. Blame of failure reach agreement after ten months discussion on renunciation force couldn’t be put on their side.

8. Wang asked in light my statement on subject embargo this morning, could he take it had no objection to opening discussion on this subject and that I would agree do so? He recalled statement I made Nov 3 last year on subject embargo. He recalled he had already made clear reply to that statement. He said then question embargo is one of matters at issue between two sides. It purpose these talks to gradually resolve, step by step all disputes between two countries. He had told me repeatedly policy embargo in itself unreasonable and hurts both sides, and violates international principle peaceful trade. That why his side resolutely opposed policy embargo. They always maintained this policy embargo should be abolished. Abolition this policy embargo in accordance interest both our two countries and peoples. Abolition this policy embargo must not be forcibly entangled with any other question or qualified with preconditions in this regard. He therefore would like hear my views in regard first steps for abolishing eliminating this embargo.

9. I assumed he did not question sovereign right my govt control trade in whatever manner it deems best interest my country. Also assumed he not questioning ability my govt, cting in accordance lawful processes, to determine what it considers in best interests my country. Policies my govt adopts with respect trade not capricious or arbitrary but determined by what it considers best interest my country. He said this question must not be forcibly entangled with other questions. I had not attempted establish any forced—but rather very natural—relationship between that and question renunciation force. I had carefully and frankly explained again this morning inevitable relationship between these two matters. I believed what I said was entirely clear and would not take time repeat it. Nevertheless as I had said am entirely prepared hear whatever views he desired put forward on subject. I again repeated that when he did so I hoped he would be specific and particularly that he would clarify exactly what aspects he had in mind. Several aspects to it as brought out in statement I made Nov 3. It not clear yet which of those various aspects it his desire discuss.

11. Wang replied deemed it necessary make clear no statements he ever made carried any intent interfere in internal affairs my country. If policies pursued by my govt had no relation whatsoever his country he’d never raise any matter this regard. His understanding trade between countries always naturally advantageous to two parties or at least this trade must not prejudice interest of one party. However, policies pursued by US Govt do not fit in generally accepted principles international trade—rather my country carrying on policy international blockade and embargo in order pursue national political objective. Implementation these policies has prejudiced interests other countries. In fact these policies prejudicial to everybody concerned. That reason why he stated this policy of embargo unreasonable, should therefore be abolished. Matter of fact this policy already provoked extreme dissatisfaction of peoples every country. That made it all more necessary discuss this subject. That was reason why this subject one of matters at issue between two countries. In raising this subject it was their demand that policy of embargo be lifted. Lifting of embargo would help in improvement of relations between China and US. Lifting embargo not only in interests Chinese people but also in interest American people. He had stated he hoped I’d put forward my concrete views with regard lifting embargo but my last statement still had not contained reply to statement he had made. He continued hope I’d consider this matter and if I found not able do so this morning, do so next meeting.

12. I replied he had often spoken of necessity these talks being mutually advantageous. Negotiations between two countries such as ours could not be one sided. However seemed to me thus far in these talks results and efforts of his [garble—side] had been directed toward solely unilateral advantage. He had presumably raised question of what he termed “trade embargo” because he considered it advantageous his side. I had explained to him reasons US didn’t consider it advantageous under present conditions. On other hand renunciation force something that clearly mutual and advantageous to both of us. If threat of force could, as I had so often proposed, be removed it could open door to fruitful discussion of other subjects. Trade policies of my country were not cause but rather effect of threat force that continues exists. If that threat could be removed by unequivocal renunciation force, it would remove one of causes this policy. His govt had it within its power remove that cause.

13. I continued at outset these discussions I pointed out another cause seriously affecting our relations was detention of American citizens in his country. I pointed out at time this also could only be removed by action his country. This another case in which his side had sought unilateral advantage. I’d thought last Sept. we’d agreed upon course action that would be of mutual advantage. Yet things appeared be going backward as far as any advantage to US concerned. Not only had Americans been released from his country at what is apparently rate considerably slower than even before we entered into agreement but any policy of what he had termed leniency appeared even been dropped. Pattern now apparently being established persons in prison being required serve full sentence. I noted that of last three persons released from prison, all had served full term sentences. I had also been disturbed note that in spite his statements here and public statements his govt, one half of persons in prison never communicated with UK Charge. That this not entirely matter of their choice confirmed by fact Father Clifford told us he had specifically been refused permission write UK Charge or to see British ConGen. Father Phillips stated he specifically told agreed announcement issued Sept 10 not applicable him. Apart from all other consideratons this stands in strong contrast to offer of which I had informed him to Indian Embassy to visit any Chinese in prison in US whether had written or not.

14. I continued whole situation is case in which his govt even yet had in its power bring about improvement in relations between us. My govt noted fact his authorities invited certain US newspaper correspondents radio commentators visit his country. My govt welcomed free exchange information between different countries irrespective of whatever political or social differences might exist between them. Impediment to such exchanges between our two countries was one which had been set up by his country and could only be removed by his country. Dept State issued public statement in this regard. In order that he might have exact text, I giving him copy. I particulerly drew his attention to last sentence that statement.

15. Wang said had always held view we should base our discussion issues between on basis principle mutual benefit. We should not base discussion on unilateral or one-sided benefit of one side. Problems could only be readily resolved if we based our discussion on former principle. No problem could be considered it we only considered ones own unilateral benefit. We all talk about the principle and we all agree with it. However, great contrast between two sides in practical carrying out this principle.

16. Wang asked permission cite few instances in relationship between China and US. What US had in fact maintained was to pursue its own unilateral benefit at expense other side. It was as matter of fact US which occupying territory China rather than China occupying territory US. It was US which carrying on economic embargo against China and not China which carrying on such policy. It quite obvious that what US doing today was to pursue its unilateral benefit at expense China. Facts being so how could my govt still cling to policy of own benefit while prejudicing benefit this country. How could such policy one-sided benefit contribute to improvement relationship between two countries.

17. Wang could only term absurd all charges agains his country which without regard to actual facts. I seemed to him to have said their side proposed policy embargo be abolished solely because abolition would be in interest of China alone. He must point out such categorization wrong. Original objective of US in imposing such policy embargo was try create difficulties for China. Objective of US was pursue own selfish interest. However things had not turned out exactly in accordance reasoning my govt. Reason either side proposed abolition policy trade embargo was not one which could be explained by saying this policy had caused tremendous difficulty to his govt. The policy embargo had actually not created any great amount difficulty to his country; fact turns out to be new and industrialized China being built up. This fact already been recognized by the world. Because policy embargo unreasonable and violates interest all peoples of world including Americans that they propose its abolition. Fact that even among US authorities there also some people who recognized necessity abolishing trade embargo proved that this policy damaging to interest of all concerned. Number of people in US didn’t understand construction of new and industrialized China. These people deliberately creating false stories this regard. Now very good opportunty afforded to American correspondents and newsmen to report on this regard personally.

18. Wang charged US had consistently made propaganda saying his country iron curtain country or what we have termed bamboo curtain country—and that his country didn’t offer access to people of other countries to visit it. They had continually been receiving many requests from American newspapermen to come China report news. General principle to deal with this matter now being adopted by most countries that visiting by newspapermen be reciprocal. This principle which should be followed is that same time American newspapermen being admitted to China, Chinese newspapermen should also be admitted to US. Might ask if US such a free country as we term it, would it have been able admit Chinese newspapermen. His government had not asked such question. His govt had acceded request newspapermen to visit his country. Might say this particularly lenient step his govt. would offer opportunity for correspondents of those American newspapers which in past had constantly slandered his country to be able visit his country themselves. This visit would also serve to promote mutual understanding and friendship between peoples these two countries.

19. Wang said now that his govt accepted request various journalists and commentators to visit his country, any attempt offer obstructio to these newsmen or to raise absolutely unreasonable demand in this regard he could only consider improper. This would amount to deliberate obstruction on part my govt against those American correspondents to make personal tour his country and have facts. This would amount to deliberate attempt on part US Govt to continue refuse face facts on China. All this would make US by its own volition what it always calls an iron curtain country. This would show US Govt deliberately creating futher obstructions rather than removing existing obstructions between China and US. Action taken by US Govt that regard would inevitably invite condemnation of all people including American press. International opinion would have its proper say on merits this matter—as to which side merits on. Any attempt try seize this opportunity when Chinese Govt accepting request American correspondents visit China for blackmail or to demand any extraneous precondition, he could only term extremely absurd.

20. Wang continued far as question return civilians concerned, they also see that what US Govt said grossly at variance with what actually carried out. I not yet given any accounting those people whose names he had given me in course discussion. Number Chinese who recently returned from US have told of various obstructions related to their return offered by US Govt. Many these people who returned had expressed desire return his country but IN and S my country made repeated attempts force or induce them go Taiwan. IN and S objected to their return on grounds China what we call Communist country. Some of them given unreasonable time limit to departure so could not bring along personal possessions—even clothing. All those actions of my country violate spirit agreed announcement. This picture grossly at variance either what US said regard so-called free departure Chinese from my country.

21. I replied fact remained in spite these vague charges Chinese, even in accordance his own statement, steadily returning his country whenever desire do so. Fact remained if any them felt were being obstructed could communicate with Indian Embassy. Fact remained Indian Embassy had not called our altention single case such obstruction. Fact remained from very outset talks I made it clear our interest was in obtaining release all Americans detained his country. I thought, my people thought, my govt thought, this had been agreed to by his authorities in our agreed announcement Sept 10. Fact remained in spite agreement between us Americans still being detained in his country, and of those who remained, their situation appeared to be even more unfavorable than prior issuance agreed announcment; whereas even before agreed announcement some of them being released prior to full term sentences that had unjustly been served upon them, now appears be pattern name those that remain serve full sentence.

22. I thus found it difficult see what advantage there been to my country in issuance agreed announcement. In view this situation and treatment accorded these Americans who already in his country it certainly cannot be expected US Govt would approve more Americans placing themselves within jurisdiction his authorities. This just plain common sense, and my govt woould be delinquent of its responsibility toward its citizens if it took any other attitude. If he desired have Americans visit his country it entirely within power his authorities remove this present impediment to their doing so; I earnestly hoped they do so.

23. Wang said this explanation and reply regarding question civilians, especially regarding Chinese civilians in US, do not appear satisfactory to him. He considered my charge [illegible in the original] his country regarding American civilians in China unreasonable. They did not accord with fact. He therefore could not accept them. With regard question American correspondents who request go China, fact was US Govt did not want them go—is preventing them from doing so. He could only say this against plain common sense and entirely policy directed to duping people. Such policy would not bring any good to US Govt.

24. On my indicating I had nothing further, Wang suggested next meeting Aug 21. I agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–956. Confidential; Limit Distribution.