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

728. Telegram 363 from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 4, 1956, 6 p.m.

363. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 59th with prepared statement saying as talks entered fifteenth month would not be without purpose to review ground covered since last August so as to obtain better appreciation position where we found selves at moment. When discussions first item ended in agreement and talks shifted to second item, my side introduced renunciation force subject for discussion. In interest making progress and with desire reach practical feasible agreement this, their side successively made important efforts in form three drafts, whereas my side all along been holding on unjustifiable position of interfering in internal affairs and encroaching on sovereignty of China.

2. Wang continued after my original proposal been turned down my subsequent amendments had invariably retained same essence. As per Chinese saying, water in pot might be renewed but pot remained same. US was fond of saying it did not require their side abandon its position, yet in practice my side invariably demanded they abandon territorial integrity and sovereignty while holding on to our own unreasonable position. My side also very fond of saying we accepted December 1 draft with only what we called minimum changes, yet so-called minimum changes always turned out to be maximum changes in substance of their proposals.

3. Wang said as result intransigence my side in its demands interfering China’s internal affairs, encroaching sovereignty his country, our talks had come to deadlock. Just where blame for failure thus far reach agreement should lie quite clear. However, my side repeatedly been trying within and without conference to distort true picture events, in attempt shirk responsibility. He particularly referred to statement issued by my government charging their side with continuing refuse renounce force Taiwan area. It might well be asked, after all, who was using force against whom in Taiwan area? Obviously there did not exist at present any situation in which China found using force against American territory. It entirely matter of China’s internal affairs as to by what means China would liberate own sovereign territory. Crux of whole matter was rather for US Government stop interference China’s internal affairs and renounce use force in Taiwan area. Could not be anything other than this.

4. Wang said September 24 statement of US once again distorted facts by slandering their side with charge of holding Americans as political hostages. Ten Americans still held were persons lawfully sentenced for breaking China’s laws. Insofar as law-abiding Americans his country concerned, they always free choose whether to return or reside China. Subsequent to agreement September 10, Wang’s government had taken further measures of leniency in granting release of greater part Americans. Could thus be seen it his government which been faithfully carrying out agreement. In contrast, my government still failed fully carry out agreement. US still failed give them complete list Chinese US. Of 55 persons whose names he had given me, 52 still not returned, and my side still failed account them. Of 103 persons on list I gave him, 26 still not returned and we still failed give accounting them. US still held many Chinese in prison. However their side not making charge we holding them as political hostages. Their side only requested US on own initiative adopt measures similar to what they had done to enable these persons exercise right return. Distortions and slander freely resorted to by my side on question civilians were no more than attempt to cover up procrastination of talks without intent of seeking solution of problems. However, facts could not be so easily covered up.

5. Wang continued as result intransigence my side in unreasonable position, talks had come to prolonged deadlock. So that no possible means for solution of controversial issues between China-America would slip through fingers, their side had introduced practical feasible proposal for removing embargo. As Wang had said, if we could reach agreement this problem it would not only resolve that issue but would also exert favorable influence on settlement other issues. Thus far, however, US had not shown willingness give earnest consideration this fair and reasonable proposal. Position my side on this was untenable.

6. Wang said my side had on one hand continued persist in demand encroaching on sovereignty and interfering internal affairs China, so that both sides could not arrive at agreement on renunciation force, yet on other hand my side had made agreement on this prerequisite for discussion of embargo. Thus my side had once more blocked way to progress in talks.
In spite this attitude my side continued hold in these talks, which did not in any way contribute to progress, nevertheless, their side still, inspired by spirit of desire for progress, made yet another proposal to promote human contacts and cultural exchange between two peoples. Far as his country concerned it consistent policy his government encourage and promote friendly exchanges between people his country and other countries of world. That because they believed peaceful coexistence and cultural exchanges between people of world would contribute to their mutual understanding and remove doubts.

7. Wang said they had not changed their policy because US Government consistently carrying on policy of hostility against Wang’s country. On contrary they considered there did exist long history friendship and contact between Chinese and American peoples. Earlier they had taken initiative in adopting measures facilitate American journalists making news coverage in China. Proposal they had made would serve to re-establish contact, for whose rupture their side bore no responsibility. It their belief that both Chinese and American people cherished strong desire this regard. It also their understanding that during conference heads state held here last year President Eisenhower made proposals for exchange of ideas and contact between peoples. In its official statements my government had also on many occasions declared itself in support this idea. It could therefore be assumed there would be no difficulty in reaching agreement on such matter, where we found such identity between views two governments.

8. Wang continued we now found selves in fifteenth month our negotiations. If we still fail achieve something at this juncture, we greatly disappoint people of world and of own countries. It seemed to him if we really desired make progress in solving problems we should conduct earnest negotiations; for to introduce prerequisites would not produce any results. He continued hope that this morning I would be able give favorable views on proposals their side had made for lifting embargo and for cultural exchange respectively.

9. I replied his view of negotiation still appears be all take and no give. I regretted this appears still be case as hard see how progress can be achieved under those circumstances. I agreed it important we be clear in minds why we at stage we are after fourteen months discussion. There were two simple straightforward, reasonable and mutually advantageous objectives which have been sought by my government at this stage. First these was that of release American citizens held in his country. Whose responsibility was it that after fourteen months this objective still not achieved; it certainly not responsibility my government. Who had failed release these people in spite our clear agreement on subject. It his government which after 14 months continued hold these people; I had pointed out at very outset these talks great importance this subject as far as future our relations concerned. He freely entered into agreement with me which clearly covered, and I had thought disposed of, this question. Failure carry out this agreement could not be excused by retreating into plea this involved international matters and domestic afffairs. Every international agreement to greater or lesser extent involved sovereign and internal affairs. If after entering into such agreement government should plead that it could not perform them because involved sovereign and internal affairs, international agreement would have little meaning. In fact international relations would deteriorate into chaos. This first agreement between us had tremendous importance and potentialities for future our relations. I had entered into it with much hope and optimism. Failure carry it out had sorely tried that hope and optimism as well as patience. I did not understand how he could term our pointing out clear fact of failure carry out this agreement as distortion and slander. Procrastination entirely part his authorities. They were ones that have it in their power stop their procrastination in carrying out this agreement. Did no good try confuse and obscure this issue by talking about lists Chinese in US. Both of us knew perfectly well under terms agreed announcement no obligation on part US to furnish any list Chinese in US. Both of us knew perfectly well such lists have no relation to ability Chinese in US return his country if desire do so. There only one question: are they able return if desire do so? Both of us knew perfectly well not been single case any obstruction to their return alleged through mechanism established that purpose.

10. I continued other immediate objective sought by my government was renunciation force which would specifically apply to most serious dispute between us. That objective also not been achieved. Whenever appeared we close to achieving it his side had retreated into pleas of domestic affairs, internal affairs, sovereignty, other such terms. Use of such terms did not obscure fact that his governnment still refused make clear-cut unqualified renunciation force. Here again procrastination entirely on his side. I had tried throughout discussion of this to point out first and immediate question not whether this internal affair or international affair or any other kind affair or otherwise to get into merits of this whole complicated issue.

11. I continued overwhelmingly most important and first aspect of it was whether we going to permit our differences—and certainly there are differences—to plunge our two peoples into cataclysm of war. This transcendental issue and cannot be concealed by distorting proposals I made by making them appear say things did not say or by making other proposals which avoid issue. He simply could not get around fact my proposals been simple and straightforward. Without prejudicing his position in any way—in fact I had specifically said so in my proposals—we simply make it clear that renunciation force did specifically apply to Taiwan, he simply could not get around fact it his side which continues threaten use force that area if could not otherwise attain ends. He could not get around fact it his side which thus far procrastinated and refused renounce use threat force that area.

12. I continued had hope he would give up insistence we digress from this fundamental issue to subordinate matters. Until this fundamental issue resolved, hard see how subordinate matters could be resolved. In treating patient one deals with source and cause of disease rather than with symptoms. As had pointed out to him here and as pointed out in Department’s statement September 24 to which he referred, it hardly reasonable expect US discuss relaxation its trade restrictions when trade that would result from such relaxation would strengthen regime which refuses renounce use force against US. As that release also pointed out and I pointed out to him previously here, my government also not prepared enter into such discussions at time when American citizens continue be held as political hostages despite pledge of September 10 last year to permit them expeditiously exercise their right return. That release uses term political hostages and I used term here advisedly. I done this because his statements here. As well as public statement his government made it all too clear it holds these people in hope extracting further political concessions from my government. This is type trading which I have and will continue refuse enter into. I find it hard understand why his authorities also appear now believe my government could consider entering into any understanding with respect cultural exchanges as long as these circumstances continue. A country does not enter into such relationships while its citizens continue be unjustly imprisoned in violation of solemn commitments that they will be released. Also while I entirely agree cultural relations between peoples are important, desirable and can do much remove misunderstanding, it hardly consistent to propose such relations with people while maintaining clear threat use armed force against same people.

13. I continued Wang had spoken again this morning of long history cultural exchange and contact between our two peoples. He had also spoken of strong desire cherished by both our people in this regard. Cutting off this contact was entirely at initiative his government and his government must bear entire responsibility for it. Because of strong desire American people maintain this contact, hundreds of Americans remained in territory which was brought under their control. These were Americans who had long and distinguished history of high-minded unselfish cultural relations with Chinese people. They were Americans who desired maintain these contacts. They were Americans who could have contributed much to understanding between our two peoples. What was history of this effort, this individual effort, on part these Americans? Organized demonstrations were fomented against them; everything possible done to foment hostility of population towards them. Money was extorted from them. Chinese who had any contact with them were placed in jeopardy. They were expelled from country. Above all, out of this small group of people we know of at least 155 who were arrested by his authorities. Stories of efforts by his authorities to extort confessions of all sorts fantastic crimes from them haven’t done much to encourage American Government or people to attempt reestablish cultural contacts between us. It not done much to encourage us to know that in addition those who were broken in body and mind when they finally left his country, at least five died while in prison or immediately following release from prison. This record not pretty nor pleasant, regretted necessity bringing it up here. However memories of those of us who associated with problem, memories of friends and relatives these people still very fresh.

14. I continued as said at last meeting, had hoped this could all be made matter of past. Had hoped bitterness in our hearts could disappear. Had hoped this entire problem could be liquidated. Had hope this could be done by release those that remained in prison so we could look forward to fresh start. Had hoped this with all my heart both personally and officially. My government had hoped for this same thing. I found it inexplicable that his authorities not appreciated importance this. Perhaps I in some way been deficient in not being able sufficiently clearly explain this to him. If so I regretted it but assured him it not been through any lack trying. If his authorities really desirous improving relations between two countries and really desirous obtaining peaceful settlement other outstanding problems, they continue have it in power do so. I assured him my government continued hope they will do so.

15. Wang replied it with regret disappointment he listened my remarks this morning as didn’t find anything contribute advance these talks, but rather contrary. In these remarks I had made many unreasonable charges against Chinese people which he could not accept. If we discussed problem deterioration Sino-American relations, we inevitably arrived at conclusion it Americans done much wrong to Chinese people and not Chinese who wronged American people. If anyone to make accusation with regard relations between China America it evidently China which in right position make such accusation, instead of American Government.

16. Wang continued fact was American aircraft and bombers throwing bombs on Chinese territory killing Chinese people. No one could ever charge Chinese aircraft sent to American territory carrying out such inhuman destructive mission. Fact was American ground, sea and air forces occupied part Chinese territory. Could I ever charge Chinese forces ever occupied at any time American territory. It US which unreasonably carried out detention of Chinese by public government orders and American Government which persecuted and imprisoned Chinese in US and as result this persecution many victims suffered mental breakdown. I could not charge Chinese Government published decree to detain Americans resident in China. It US which carried out policy embargo against China not vice versa. It US which tried by every means to deprive China of legitimate rights in international affairs, including efforts on part US try deprive China of legitimate representation in UN. And in doing so US has pressured other countries to follow lead. These aggressive and unfriendly records of US against China not only roused indignation all serious-minded people his country but also aroused all serious-minded people of world to oppose such policy.

17. Wang continued China never adopted any blanket policy against American citizens in China. There still many American citizens who continue after long years residence to reside in his country freely. These people so far have not indicated any desire return US. There another group Americans who opposed Chinese people. There yet another group Americans who sent by American Government and purposely air dropped into Chinese territory. Such people did not come to China out of any high-minded idea, but went to China with poison, pistols and bombs. Could anyone expect Chinese Government treat these people as distinguished guests. Despite these unfriendly activities consistently carried out by US, in spite this record, their side had been patiently sitting here and had continued to desire negotiate with America.

18. Wang continued I had remarked that they only wanted take not give. They simply wanted take those things which originally belonged them. What gift did we expect of them? In present circumstances America already occupying Chinese territory Taiwan. Did US expect China give more territory? Present difficulty is US merely thought of own interest without considering interest of others. This case of pursuing only ones selfish interest. In that manner how could problems between us be solved. We sitting here engaging in discussion and our objective should be resolve issues. If we could not now resolve big issues, we could still resolve small issues. This would still help a lot and it better to solve these small issues than not solve any at all. As we sitting here in negotiations we should seek means for improving relations instead poisoning them. If one has intention poisoning relations between two countries instead of trying solve outstanding issues, then what is good of continuing these talks? Record of these talks clearly showed they consistently working to resolve issues between us. Their record evidenced by successive drafts introduced on agreement making renunciation force declaration as well as by proposals they made designed remove embargo against China and designed promote human contacts cultural exchanges between two countries.

19. Wang continued American press always been fond of making charges against China alleging it not free country and existence iron or bamboo curtain and alleging his government did not offer freedom of travel for foreigners. Present fact is Americans desire visit China. American people interested in China. Deeds and words of American Government are quite inconsistent. Proposals Chinese Government introduced on question contacts persons and cultural exchange capable of satisfying desire of American people. Present action of US Government runs counter to such desire of American people. This evidenced by fact American people not making protest against Chinese Government but rather against American Government on question contacts of people and cultural exchange. Policy pursued by American Government on question of contacts of peoples and cultural exchange can show whether this government has any confidence in own system. Refusal on part US Government to proposal of cultural exchange and contact of peoples shows American Government has lost confidence in own people as well as its own system. It out of friendly spirit his side proposed contact of people and cultural exchange. Refusal of US Government to give favorable consideration this proposal would make them consider it necessary make public their proposal so public could judge.

20. I replied as he had once well said here, these negotiations not football game. They could not be judged, neither would world judge them on basis of number balls tossed out on field. Could only be judged, and world would judge on basis substantive positions each side had taken. It US which proposed unconditionally we make it clear our differences be settled only by peaceful means. No amount proposals or words could obscure fact his side still rejects that simple proposition. No amount proposals or words could obscure fact his side still procrastinated in accepting that fundamental principle. No amount words can obscure fact his government still failing carry out its undertaking permit Americans return. I regretted that instead facing up to resolving these basic matters his government intended again resort to forum public statements. However I continued be entirely willing let world judge issues. I entirely willing let world judge whether it and American people had faith in our system which had endured for almost two centuries and brought to our people and world standards of material and spiritual well-being and freedom unparalleled in world’s history.

21. Wang said he had presented his views this morning and had no more to add. He sure people able judge who trying solve issues and who obstructing.

22. I had no more and suggested Thursday, October 18 for next meeting. He agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–456. Confidential; Limit Distribution.