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

709. Telegram 232 from Geneva¹

Geneva, September 7, 1956, 6 p.m.

232. From Johnson.

1. I opened 57th with prepared statement:

A. Hope you have reconsidered remarks made at last few meetings, and particularly at last meeting, on inescapable priority of question of agreement by your govt to genuine renunciation force.

B. As pointed out fruitful discussion trade cannot be expected under conditions in which your govt persistently refuses agreement and attempts evade clearly renouncing use force in disputes involving two countries, and in fact even continues openly threaten use force. Just common prudence dictates my country not contribute to increasing economic industrial potential of country which maintains such posture toward my country.

C. Tragic event of night of Aug 22–23 in which lives of number my countrymen unjustifiably taken again demonstrates need for your govt genuinely renounce use force. So long as your govt maintains present attitude this subject danger of attacks such as this will always be present. Most solemnly must state conviction that continuation of this attitude of hostility and readiness destroy lives property of others makes impossible that attainment of stable secure situation in Far East which my govt continues seek. Cite this merely by way example and not for purpose of here discussing unhappy incident. However in order your authorities may have full accurate text, I am giving you copy joint statement Departments State and Defense of August 31 with regard this incident. (Pointed copy on table.)

D. Also related to this is question of good faith in carrying out agreements. All too clear and continued failure your authorities permit return detained Americans accordance our agreement of year ago cannot but give rise to increasingly serious doubts this regard.

E. This then is situation which two of us confronted. Question is what we do resolve it. It clear it cannot be resolved by discussion subsidiary subjects, but only by progress on fundamentals, that is, unconditional renunciation force as I have proposed and by carrying out in full our agreement Sept 10 last year.

F. Very much look forward to hearing from you this morning anything that will assist us in making progress on these fundamentals.

2. Wang replied from prepared statement: Two of us had spent long time on discussion issuance renunciation force declaration. In course this discussion his side had repeatedly put forward reasonable proposals for making such declaration. Failure so far, after 11 months, to arrive at agreement due to persistent demand my side to encroach upon sovereign rights his country. If my side desired make progress on this, then must give up unreasonable demands before we could succeed.

3. Wang continued, was with aim pushing talks forward and making talks yield fruitful progress that his side proposed subject removal embargo. As he consistently had pointed out embargo one of obstacles in relations between two countries, is unjustifiable in itself, should therefore be removed. Again, as he observed at last meeting, agreement between both sides on removal embargo would create favorable atmosphere in talks and contribute toward resolution other problems. He must however frankly point out my side must not expect his side accept demands that encroach on sovereign rights their side in exchange for removal embargo because this simply could not be accepted.

4. Wang continued, as regards plane incident Aug 23 I had mentioned, he must point out this incident another case serious provocation by US military aircraft against his country. Incident involved US military aircraft making intrusion into territorial air his country. This established as indisputable fact which US Govt itself could not but acknowledge in statement. Hostile military aircraft intruding into territorial air of sovereign state is something no sovereign country could tolerate and remain idle. Intruded area, as known, is combat zone and therefore all consequences intrusion by US aircraft must be responsibility US itself. Following this violation territorial air of China by said military aircraft, US Naval vessels and aircraft again Aug 23–24 intruded in force their territorial sea and air in planned manner. Instead accepting serious protest his govt, my govt had even made unreasonable demands on his govt—this entirely unjustifiable.
He might put question, suppose military aircraft his country intruded in territorial air US, what did I think consequences be. Could US remain idle without taking any action against this aircraft? In this incident his govt alone had right make protest therefore could not accept copy this document I handed him this morning. Incident Aug 23 only one of many incidents of provocative nature on part US against territory his country.

5. Wang continued, such incidents clearly at variance with objectives renunciation force, subject which I had suggested. They considered success in making declaration renunciation force must not remain in words but must be carried out in action. We now confronted situation in which US side not only failed put forward constructive proposals for making renunciation force declaration but US also not stopped continuous provocative acts against this country. This performance US could not contribute improvement relations between two countries. In order I might clearly understand position his govt he would hereby give me copy English translation statement made by his Ministry Foreign Affairs Sept 2. Next he would appreciate my making comments on reasonable draft he put forward last meeting on question removal embargo.

6. I replied was not sure he understood me regarding copy statement I offered him. We had previously received through Office UK Charge Peiping copy statement issued his Foreign Office Sept 2. However, was glad accept additional copy he made available this morning. Statement I had offered him was only copy public statement which had already been issued. I simply making it available him for information so he would have full and accurate text. Doing this as matter of courtesy. Of course if he did not desire accept it, it was his choice entirely. Point of view US very clearly and carefully set forth in that statement. Had no intent taking time here recapitulate what already contained that statement. As said, not my purpose enter into discussion here.

7. I continued, with regard present stage negotiation on declaration renunciation force he stated he put forward repeatedly what he termed reasonable proposals this regard. Could not agree this was case. As previously pointed out, he had since Dec 1 gone backwards in this respect. I in turn had consistently attempted preserve area of agreement we had reached and go forward. I not taken any hard fast attitude on exactly how such declaration should be expressed. I had been insistent only on principles it should contain if it is to have real meaning. Even accepted in his draft Dec 1 form and words contained therein. In attempt fully meet his point view I offered on two successive occasions amendments to that draft Dec 1 adding only minimum necessary make it really meaningful. I had made no unreasonable demands on his govt. My suggestions had been fully reciprocal and had not required his govt sacrifice or prejudice its views in any way. Had only been insistent declaration be really meaningful and there be full understanding between us as to its meaning. That is, it not be empty words devoid of real content and understanding between us. Have considered in past and willing reconsider in future question of how principles can be expressed in form acceptable to both sides. I did not have closed mind on subject but consider way to make progress was move ahead from points of agreement already reached and not try establish new conditions and revert to old positons as he had done in May 11 draft. Had kept hoping he would approach matter with same attitude.

8. I said my position regard discussion trade at this stage not based upon any arbitrary attempt establish relationship between this item and renunciation force but only on inescapable substantive relationship between these two things. My views on this fully set forth. As previously said, I fully prepared listen his views on trade while he considering question renunciation force. Once his govt had accepted principle renunciation force, and agreement reached on declaration that regard, then could be discussion of item regard trade he proposed. However, did not think useful or productive for me comment on proposal he had made until that time.

9. I said would hope he would be able abandon position taken May 11 draft and that preserving area agreement shown my April 19 (note: 19) draft we could really get ahead on question making declaration renunciation force. If he not position do so this morning, hoped he would at next meeting so we could sit down and really accomplish something this regard.

10. Wang replied, had fully set forth this morning position his side on question making renunciation force, that is, if we were to make progress on this, my side must either accept their proposal or produce some new proposal acceptable to both sides. However, I had just now made mere repetition my position and he did not think this resetting forth old positions would help us in this discussion. He must point out however it was simply stalling tactics my side and insistence my side on unjustifiable demands that caused failure reach agreement on this so far.

11. Wang said it was in view this that his side proposed we discuss question removing embargo. I had again said willing listen views his side on question removing embargo and would be willing take under consideration that question. Yet his side already made concrete proposal this regard and I had again evaded definite reply. I had even further put forward unjustifiable precondition to this discussion. As said this morning, any attempt my part make his side accept unreasonable demands in exchange for removal embargo will prove illusion and will prove be something cannot accept at all. His side strongly and continuously opposed any such attempt. Attitude adopted my side on question embargo could not but compel his side consider making public its position on question embargo.

12. Wang said with regard Aug 23 plane incident and statement my govt I mentioned this morning, he already made clear protest his govt this incident. Since I had explained it not my purpose discuss matter here and since I stated this statement only informal document for information, he would be ready accept this document.

13. Wang picked document off table.

14. I said thought we ought be clear as to what had prevented agreement thus far on renunciation force declaration. There were two things. One has been unwillingness his govt make it clear such declaration covers what we both agree is most serious dispute between us: that is Taiwan area. Second has been his insistence my govt abandon right self defense. World readily able judge which these positions reasonable, which unreasonable. World also be able readily judge whether reasonable that this fundamental question of whether there is to be resort to force in these disputes be resolved before there is discussion of such matters as trade. Regretted his decision again resort to public statements and propaganda with regard these talks. However perfectly willing if he desired that our respective positions be made public. If his govt did make public statement, of course my govt must consider matter of making reply thereto.

15. I said thought world also able judge whether our agreement of almost exactly one year ago been carried out by his side. Impossible me understand what his authorities think they gaining by avoiding carrying out that agreement. That was first question in terms of reference for these talks. Over year later still outstanding question. Ten Americans still remained in prisons his country in spite of clear commitment they be permitted expeditiously return. As I had pointed out they had even gone backwards as far as people and govt my country could see. Apparently policy now was require prisoners serve full term their sentences no matter how unreasonable or unjustified sentence might have been. From standpoint my govt there seems be no advantage—in fact disadvantage from this agreement. I must most strongly emphasize our dissatisfaction, disappointment this agreement not being carried out and this source friction between our two countries not being removed as I proposed at very outset these talks.

16. Wang said could not agree with remarks I just made. Purpose these talks try seek solution of issues between two countries. Not purpose make propaganda. He did not want leave questions under discussion for long without attaining results. He did not want let world be deprived of information on what had taken place in these talks. Sure public opinion in position judge which side reasonable and which not.

17. Wang noted as to question civilians, that most of persons whose names he had given me had not returned and no accounting been made. Moreover unreasonable requirement with regard Taiwan entry permits, requirement Chinese in US apply for permanent residence not been removed. He sure public opinion also able make fair judgment on this matter. World would readily and clearly see that since talks began greater part of Americans in China had returned to their country as result lenient policy his govt. These facts could not be disputed by anyone.

18. I replied our announcement of September 10 did not say greater part Americans in his country be able return within year after announcement—announcement said all would be able return expeditiously.

19. Wang said our agreement did not say all Americans in prison who committed crimes would be able return promptly disregarding Chinese law.

20. I said it did not say some Americans, it did not say except those in prison, it said all Americans would be able return.

21. Wang said but this agreement did not specify precise time. Or was my govt in position release all forty odd Chinese in prisons my country.

22. I said had told him previously, any who desired return would be able promptly return, whether in prison or not.

23. Wang asked if we in position release all those people from prison and let them decide whether or not they wish return his country.

24. I said did not get his point. Did he mean they should all be released, whether they wanted return or not? Our agreed announcement covered people who desired return.

25. Wang asked how could person in US prison express free will as to whether he desires return to his country. That was what he not ready believe. Even people out of prison in US had all sorts worries and apprehension on question returning. How could one expect people in prison decide freely?

26. I replied person in prison could certainly decide whether desires remain serve out term accordance normal processes justice or whether desires immediate return his country. That not hard decision make. I had set forth plan to enable them to assure themselves prisoners had freely made decision. It just had never occurred to me he could or would object to procedures we set forth. They went far beyond anything we required do under agreed announcement. It was attitude his govt that had prevented Indian Embassy from acting in accordance with procedures we set forth. Therefore any delay is solely and absolutely responsibility his govt.

27. Wang replied this serious remark not credible. Must try judge matter on merits actual facts instead on basis imagination. US authorities repeatedly tried prevent Chinese students return his country by telling them not return to what we call Communist China and by attempting influence them proceed Taiwan. If such acts could be applied people out of prisons one could readily imagine what would be done to people in prison. Chinese in prison could express desire return own country. But ability actually do so another question. These people have to take into account whether by expressing will return their country it would intensify punishment. Problem is whether US would carry out faithfully agreement permit Chinese in US return without applying pressure or offering obstacles to their doing so. He noted that I had taken no step to submit list all Chinese in US which he had repeatedly requested. Such being case, side which extremely dissatisfied with outcome agreement precisely his side.

28. I said no obligation under agreed announcement submit any list Chinese in US. Obligation was permit Chinese in US who desire do so return his country. Let us keep to facts. Agency established for assuring whether or not this case had not among tens of thousands Chinese in US yet brought to our attention any single case alleged obstruction. This was fact which no amount vague statements, vague charges could controvert. Was also fact Chinese steadily returning his country. I knew of nine who had definitely done so since I last mentioned this subject. This made total 190 I definitely knew of since last Aug 1.

29. Wang said even this 190 did not represent all who desired return. He had given me names 50-odd persons, 52 of whom had not returned. I had stated no allegation been made to US as to obstruction return, but this did not mean there been no difficulties encountered by Chinese. He had repeatedly spoken on this situation. He had nothing further.

30. Wang proposed next meeting Thursday, Sept 20 and I agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–756PA. Confidential; Limit Distribution.