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

697. Letter 42 from Johnson to McConaughy¹

Letter No. 42

Geneva, August 9, 1956

Dear Walter:

Thanks very much for getting the Department’s August 7 press statement to me before the meeting. It was an excellent statement, saying the right things in the right way and I was able to make good use of it. However, I don’t think we should believe that it will in fact accelerate the release of the remaining prisoners. The Chinese Communists full well knew we would take this position before they approved the applications and they did so first as a propaganda gesture in an attempt to put us on the spot, and secondly in the belief that our position will be undermined by some of the correspondents going regardless of what we say. It is going to be very hard for them to go in face of the Department’s statement, but I fear this may not deter some of them. Also they hope to set up controversy between the Department and the news agencies so that it will not be an issue between ourselves and the Chinese, but between the Department and the news agencies. It is a very clever move on their part and I am surprised they haven’t done so before now. You will note that in discussing it today I carefully avoided saying anything about our “forbidding” correspondents to go or making any flat statements that none would go. I very much had in mind our discussion with Hermann before I came over here on the whole legal position in this regard. I suppose if they do go and get away with it we will be faced with the problem of some of the relatives of prisoners wanting to go.

I haven’t much to add to my comment telegram. The whole thing has become so abstract and the same things have been said so often that I find it difficult to keep my grip on it or think of any new way of saying it.

Strange we have not heard anything from O’Neill. Hope we have something from him as well as the interviews with the Chinese prisoners before next meeting. However, with regard to the latter even if some want to go I do not think it would be wise to say anything to Wang or the Indians until they have actually left. If we do and any of them change their minds or there are other slip-ups it would have been better to have said nothing.

Thanks for your letter of August 3. Dave is going over the material on the missing POWs. Incidentally you should know that between meetings he is working the Economic Section here and getting some good experience in ECE sub-committee meetings, etc. Vreeland, who the consulate has made available for reporting the meetings is an excellent man and the whole arrangement is now working out very well.

Incidentally could you have someone send us two copies of the recent Yale University publication on “Chinese Language Reform” on which there was an article in the August 5 New York Times. We can make use of one of them and I have in mind using the other to give Wang if and when a suitable opportunity develops.

Regards to all.

Sincerely,

U. Alexis Johnson
American Ambassador

P.S. The Geneva contingent send their regards to you Doug, Ralph, John & Pete for the supplement to the entertainment allowance and said it will be used as per instructions. A full report will be submitted.

1. Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Personal–Informal. Johnson signed the original “Alex.” The postscript is handwritten.