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

757. Telegram 571 from Geneva¹

Geneva, November 30, 1956, 5 p.m.

571. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 62nd meeting with prepared statement. My side has continued take procrastinating attitude on second item agenda culminating deadlock our talks. Ever since began second item his side been following spirit of resolving issues improving relations and repeatedly made constructive proposals this direction. His side made great efforts clear away difficulties resolve issues. By adoption his proposals for renunciation force in relations between China and US as well as for holding FMC, our two countries could have resolved outstanding issues and tensions in Far East would have been relaxed and Sino-American relations improved. However, my side apparently did not share desire. My side simply sticking to unreasonable demands for encroaching their sovereignty and interfering internal affairs—thus contributing nothing to resolution problems.

2. Wang continued under such circumstances his side again taken initiative in making proposal for lifting embargo and another for promoting mutual contacts and cultural exchange between Chinese and American people in expectation that resolving these two points might enable us make progress other issues as well. However, my attitude toward these proposals had been equally disappointing. My side had even gone so far as refuse negotiate, giving no consideration whatsoever to those proposals. Meanwhile my side continued intolerable acts provocation to increase tension Taiwan area. Such performance in dragging out talks on one hand and creating tensions other was not expression sincerity talks. It was their hope I would change this futile, harmful performance and get down to earnest negotiation so two us could discharge mission. He’d be glad hear any constructive views I might have push forward our talks.

3. I replied he had spoken of settling our problems here. He had spoken of constructive views or attitudes on settling our problems. This exactly point I been trying make here during recent months. I tried point out way settle problems was do something about them rather than just issue forms of words which appeared do something about them but in fact do nothing. Our governments both agreed and terms reference these talks clearly set forth that first problem we were to deal with was return civilians. As had pointed out at time we issued our statement, statement itself solved nothing—only action his govt could solve matters insofar as Americans concerned. However his govt continued procrastinate and stall in settlement that matter. It entirely impossible for me understand what it hopes gain thereby.

4. Turning to prepared statement I continued:

A. Since last meeting, I received additional information with regard continued effort your govt procrastinate in carrying out announcement Sept 10 last year, and distort very clear meaning that announcement. On Nov 14, your authorities in Peking rejected representations made by UK Charge in case McCarthy, alleging that Charge’s representations exceeded scope his functions under agreed announcement. Your authorities even refused permit UK Charge investigate facts in McCarthy’s case.

B. For over year, your authorities have been steadily and systematically depriving that announcement of its meaning, so not shred of its original substance left with respect Americans.

C. At time that announcement issued, it covered, so far as Americans in China concerned, definite group 19 persons in prison. Our announcement contained very explicit provisions affecting these 19 persons. Their right return was recognized. Measures were to be taken by your authorities permitting them expeditiously exercise this right. If any of Americans felt his departure being prevented, he could communicate with UK Charge. UK Charge was to be able make representations on behalf any such person. Charge was also to be enabled investigate facts in any such case.

D. Now, after more than year, it impossible point to single provision our announcement which has not been systematically cynically violated by your authorities. Even limited ability of Americans communicate with UK Charge has been deprived of any meaning by prohibition any mention of facts with regard their cases. This would appear indicate even your authorities realize facts in these cases could not justify continued failure release these persons in accordance with commitment announcement.

E. While your authorities have been thus constricting scope of agreement, with eventual result its significance has been all but destroyed, my government has not only been faithfully carrying out every one of its provisions, it has even enlarged its scope beyond what was originally agreed upon. My government offered deport immediately your country any alien Chinese prisoner my country wishing go there. To assure you our good faith my government was prepared allow representatives of third party your choice to be present when prisoners stated their preferences. You rejected this offer, making it clear you preferred my government join your authorities in restricting, rather than enlarging, scope of agreed announcement. This, my government of course could not and would not do. Since decision had been taken to extend provisions of agreed announcement to such prisoners, my government on own intitiative took measures allow those wishing do so expeditiously exercise their right return. Prisoners were interviewed individually by representatives of American Red Cross in order entirely impartially determine their wishes. In keeping with your desires, no representative of Indian Embassy,—nor of any third country—was present these interviews.

F. I can now inform you, on October 29, as result these measures, a Chinese prisoner desiring return your country, Mr. James Lew, departed from my country. I understand he arrived Hong Kong November 19, and has now presumably crossed into your country. I might mention Mr. Lew was permitted proceed your country even though he had served only about one and one half years of 7 to 20 years sentence for manslaughter and would not for many years have even become eligible for our very lenient parole procedures or reduction sentence for good behavior.
As for balance of Chinese prisoners my country, they have freely and formally indicated to impartial representative ARC they have no desire return your country and are thus clearly outside terms reference our talks.

G. Have given you this information not in order demand your authorities enlarge, as my government has done, scope of announcement. My government asks no more than plain terms of our agreement be implemented, with respect to very Americans about whom you and I were talking when announcement was issued. My government is clearly entitled expect 10 remaining Americans will be allowed without further delay return their country.

H. I mention this matter in some detail this morning because think it important we be clear as to which side really been resolving issues between us. I mention it because of great importance fulfilling understandings and commitments already arrived at and great importance knowing whether pledged words have any value. This had importance which transcends even importance of these individual Americans and this issue. Importance relates to whole range of relations between our two countries. Basis of mutual confidence absolutely essential if there is to be possibility of negotiating resolution of our other disputes.

5. I continued, performance his government thus far with respect first agreement between us had not established that basis confidence. I had at each meeting here and continue to express my hope that his authorities would establish that basis of confidence by carrying out that agreement. This is not anything which any form of words or proposal from my side could possibly resolve. Neither could any form words or proposals from my side resolve problem of decision by his authorities that our other disputes be solved by peaceful means only, either these problems could be resolved by changing level of these meetings. They could be resolved when his authorities reached decision to resolve them. When that done we could here go on to discussion other matters between us. I had hoped, still hope his government would take action essential enable us do so. I regretted that in his statement this morning I did not see any indication they had taken decision do so.

6. Wang replied after listening statement I just made he equally regretted no indication in statement any constructive views make progress these talks. I had spoken of establishing mutual confidence between us and also said settlement problems could only be resolved by taking action rather than putting forward empty words. In course talks his side repeatedly made proposals which could have helped us make progress. Yet my side refused take under consideration. How could we expect progress. If only one of two sides had desire make progress by taking action in these talks it very hard make any progress. For long time they had not seen any indication of intent on part US take effective steps make progress these talks. My side not only failed offer effective steps push these talks forward but at same time my side not willing consider acceptance their proposals which could have actually made progress our talks. Under such circumstances how could one expect any resolution of problems and how could mutual confidence be established this manner.

7. Wang continued insofar as problem return civilians it rather his side which felt dissatisfied. They had always extended welcome all Chinese nationals returning their country. However number persons who actually returned very much at variance with number those whose return they desired. These talks now in sixteenth month yet my side still, without justification refused furnish list all Chinese residing my country. My side still refused give any account 52 Chinese whose names he had given me with request accounting be made nor given any explanation of failure return 26 of 103 who my side long ago informed him desired return and whose return been obstructed. Even after conclusion solemn agreement my side seen fit pressure Chinese nationals secure Taiwan entry permit or apply for permanent residence US. In addition my authorities continue use all sort impossible methods try keep their nationals from returning homeland. Besides shocking case he brought up last meeting is how FBI, in attempt obstruct return, flagrantly interfering freedom Chinese nationals’ correspondence, my immigration authorities also used pressure and threats in violation agreement and attempt convince departing Chinese proceed Taiwan or not leave US. Most Chinese who returned recently had had such experience, indicating such illegal practices being used systematically. Instead correcting this violation agreement my side resorting entanglement issue by making false charges that his country failed carry out agreement. My side dared not face up to fact his govt long since carrying out agreement by enabling all Americans desiring do so return my country. My side cannot deny his side in accordance agreement takes measures on own initiative and been handling cases in lenient spirit even enabled greater part American prisoners return. At opening these talks this group Americans numbered 40, including 13 airmen (sic.). Now remained only 10 serving sentences in China. Now my side gone so far demand immediate release these persons prior expiration sentences and before justice authorities taken measures own initiative commute sentences. He couldnt but consider this flagrant case interference in internal affairs his country. Insofar case Charles McCarthy concerned already made comment at great length last meeting and not going make further comment today. Contrary lenient policy his country toward American prisoners, my side illegally carried out screening of imprisoned Chinese in attempt accomplish design retaining these persons. They would never recognize this illegal screening persons. They formally demand US carry out agreement by supplying list Chinese, by removing obstructions their departure and by stopping all acts which volate agreement. Improvement relations between us and progress our talks required concerted effort both sides. The demand only one side unilaterally to make progress will not help in the actual progress of our talks.

8. I replied he had spoken of false charges here. We had very good method in our announcement of determining who in fact making false charges. We had very good method determining who in fact carrying out announcement. It method he himself suggested. It is third party which had specific functions in each our countries under announcement. I did not know how it could be better demonstrated that my govt had carried out agreement than by fact it had not yet received from third party single representation alleging it had interfered with departure any Chinese from my country who desired return. This should demonstrate what I wanted emphasize is fact: my country had not slightest interest attempting keep in my country any Chinese who desires return his country. That should be, I thought, self-evident. We had no need for or desire have unwilling residents our country. Every Chinese my country who desired return continued free be able do so at time his choice. That they continued do so shown by fact that insofar our information extends 250 have done so since beginning our talks. Question not whether number who returned was, as he phrased it, number whose return they desired; question was whether those who wanted return able do so. This, in view his representations here even extended to prisoners who common criminals. Extended without regard gravity crimes, length sentences or eligibility for leniency. I had been making no demand on him here except that his govt equally carry out commitment it undertaken. That it had not done so shown by fact there 10 Americans who undeniably desire return, not yet able do so. That it not even carried out subsidiary portions agreement proven by fact it even refused accept representations from third party with regard case clearly coming within terms announcement. It had refused permit third party even investigate facts case when request been made strictly in accordance terms announcement. These not vague, unsupported allegations my part, they undeniable facts. They acts involving third party under our agreement. No amount rationalization could dispose of these facts.

9. Wang replied had already made clear opinion on question civilians this morning. Nothing more add to those observations. Also made clear repeatedly his specific request on improvement status Chinese nationals in US, improvement their ability without obstruction return their country. He desired see this situation would in fact be improved. As he had repeatedly made clear in these talks, any additional demands going beyond scope agreement, insofar as Americans in China concerned, would not be accepted by his side. They had already taken measures enable greater part Americans in China exercise right return. As regards remaining 10 prisoners serving sentences he had never said China would cease applying to them lenient policy. If these persons show good behavior, they would continue, as they had repeatedly stated, to take lenient measures.

10. I replied it not question good behavior, not question lenient policy as he termed it. Not question of greater part of Americans being able return who desire do so. It question of whether first agreement between us was to be carried out and all of them be able do so. I had made no demands on him beyond scope agreement. My demands were that agreement be carried out. Thus far it had not been. He spoke of lenient policy. As I had previously pointed out, very hard even a part agreement, see that is being carried out. Policy now appeared be these people required serve full term their sentences. Contrasted sharply with action taken my authorities. As I pointed out this morning a Chinese prisoner in my country desiring return his country had been permitted do so entirely without regard normal policies parole and leniency. Permitted do so without regard his behavior or any time off good behavior. When impartially determined he desired return, he was permitted immediately—let me say expeditiously—do so.

11. Wang replied his govt had in past and would in future adopt lenient policy toward American prisoners. In view crimes and offenses committed by these individuals in China, not question of taking couple years off their sentences. Facts already demonstrated how extensive had been application lenient policy to Americans. To demand his govt disregard provisions of its law in dealing with Americans was interference with sovereign rights his country and would never achieve desired end. If all the Americans who committed offenses in China be able return within prescribed time then, not necessary make that agreement. As matter of fact my govt actually kept greater number Chinese in our prisons. They had repeatedly stated and expressed strong opposition to screening these Chinese. There was significant discrepancy between my statement this morning and at last meeting. At last meeting I made statement not single Chinese indicated desire return his country. This morning I told him one these Chinese had desired do so. This conspicuous case self-contradiction. He repeatedly advised my govt adopt measures on own initiative just as his govt had in handling Chinese in my country. I had been making demands immediate release Americans serving sentences his country. If he were to follow my logic (he not speaking of immediate release all those imprisoned Chinese) he’d like to know whether my govt could agree allow all these imprisoned Chinese get out of prison and be in position to express will. As he had repeatedly pointed out in past, it essential in handling return civilians to adopt measures facilitate and enable persons to in fact return. Nothing in series actions taken my govt had been in direction resolving this problem. In such circumstances how could one speak of faithfully implementing our agreement.

12. I replied, first wanted clear up apparent misunderstanding. He quoted me as saying at last meeting not single Chinese in prison had indicated desire return his country. I did not recall making that statement—did not believe I had. What I recalled saying was that there not then any single Chinese in our prisons who did desire return, that statement entirely accurate and consistent with statement I had made this morning because as had stated this morning Mr. Lew departed from US October 29.

13. I continued frankly not able follow his line reasoning. On one hand he said my asking him release all American prisoners and permitting them return in accordance with agreement was interfering in internal affairs. On other hand he asked me to release all Chinese in prisons US and once released permit them make decision as to whether desired return. I not asking him release Americans from his prisons to remain his country. I was asking him to make it possible for all of them who undoubtedly wished return to do so. I might point out even his own practice did not conform to what he desire I do. He had informed me of at least eight or nine cases since talks began—some at time issuance agreement and some subsequent that—of Americans who being deported from his country. They not being released as free persons into his country to decide what they wanted do, they being deported. I had not objected this procedure. His authorities could naturally carry it out any way they desired. Two important elements are simply whether they desire return and whether able do so. In cases where his authorities carried out deportations these elements present. Not objecting, but simply pointing out inconsistency with what he now seemed be saying with regard Chinese prisoners in US. Accepting his contention that they covered by agreement these two elements again arise. Did they desire return and were they able do so. In absence of his concurrence procedure we first suggested to determine their desires, we had adopted most incontrovertibly unprejudiced method we could find. That was agency of American Red Cross. That agency interviewed each prisoner to determine his desire. When that determined, prisoners who had expressed desire return his country enabled immediately and promptly do so.

14. Wang replied on question return civilians, I had spoken of two elements: whether persons desired return and whether able do so. Problem we now handling concerned transaction between two countries and should therefore follow usual international practice. Greater part Americans in China including those imprisoned for offenses had been handled by his govt in accordance with measures taken his govt. As far as Chinese imprisoned my country concerned, they had repeatedly pointed out fact imprisoned persons not in position indicate free will. That why he raised question with me as to whether my authorities could release them out of prison and when once released determine whether desired return my country. If US not in position do so, then easy understand why his govt could not act according to what I had demanded here.

15. I replied, had not asked him to release Americans in prison to remain in China and then decide whether or not they desire go. As had pointed out in past that had not even been his own practice in many these cases. Except where persons had served full term sentences, and therefore there no choice but release them, they appeared to have followed practice deportation. As had told him that is entirely acceptable to me and I did not believe it contrary to terms agreement. In fact I anticipated that he would probably carry out his obligations under agreement in that manner. However, this entirely matter for decision by his authorities. I had never attempted dictate manner in which they should carry out their obligations. Only asked international obligation assumed by his authorities be carried out.

16. Wang replied what I had spoken about exactly what his country doing now. As to what methods and ways employed, whether they be deported or whether be given early release, entirely matter decison by justice authorities his country. As had repeatedly stated here, if prisoners concerned showed good behavior, it would certainly help justice authorities take action to reach such decison.

17. I replied yet he asked justice authorities my country unconditionally release all Chinese prisoners my country, then let them decide if they desire return.

18. Wang replied they had not made such a demand on my govt. Only demanded it adopt measures on its own initiative. Wished stress imprisoned Chinese my country did not have ability espress will while in prison. To try to state by any means that any Chinese in our prisons return or not could not be considered true.

18. I asked did he mean a man in prison could not decide whether he prefered to serve sentence in accordance with regulations of which aware, or desired immediatly proceed his country—that is did he mean a man could not make a decision between those two things.

19. Wang replied as result years my govt’s outrageous anti-China propaganda campaign and persecution Chinese my country, tremendous pressure and threats exerted these persons with regard desire return motherland. As result all this, (psychology of Chinese prisoners no longer normal and would believe if only mention desire return motherland, sentences might be doubled and in cases when people committed minor offense,) might be taken as major offenses and heavier sentences given. Under such circumstances difficult express wish and difficult make decision.

20. I said seemed to me pressure would all be in other direction. Certainly for prisoner who had long sentence ahead of him to be given choice between serving that sentence and being given immediate release return to his country, pressure would be all for seeking release. I was confident any Chinese in US perfectly aware of what been fundamental principle of our system justice from very beginning our country. Far from being worried about his sentence being doubled or increased, he would know perfectly well that utterly impossible under our system. First, it always been fundamental principle our justice, no man could be tried twice for same crime. That is if tried and found innocent he could not be tried again. If tried and found guilty and sentence imposed he could not be tried again and another sentence imposed. If tried and found guilty and appealed sentence to hgher court, higher court could under no circumstances increase sentence. It could either decrease sentence or reaffirm sentence—or declare him innocent. These absolutely fundamental principles of our system justice which well known anyone livng our country. I thus satisfied no prisoners could possibly have fear he mentioned. In any event I thought case Mr. Lew who has just returned his country ample proof this. Again ask him by whatever method he chose, permit Americans in his country expeditiously be permitted return my country. In other words simply ask that clear words agreement be carried out.

21. Wang said didnt want engage debate on legal procedure my country. Simply wanted point out no lack cases innocent Chinese nationals and Chinese students my country who subjected arrest and imprisonment my govt. For a person simply to desire return own country had even been made sort of crime. Even those persons who already embarked on ships bound home and even those already Hong Kong had been subjected all sorts systematic obstruction. Such was treatment given by my agencies to persons who not even committed offenses my country. We could imagine what state of mind persons actually imprisoned my country are in. That reason he had pointed out persons imprisoned my country not able express free will.

22. I made two points. No Chinese imprisoned my country except for committing common crimes; survey of all Chinese prisoners my country showed they there for only two offenses—one was murder or manslaughter, other narcotics violation. Secondly, it truly remarkable that if any substance their allegations of obstruction, at least one case not called our attention by very agency established for that purpose. This fact taken with fact Chinese had steadily been returning his country showed lack substance such allegations.

23. Wang said already pointed out many examples how Chinese in America who desired return been obstructed. On other hand fact many Chinese students in America who desired return his country not able do so proved fact obstruction. Had expressed hope and continued hope this situation so far as Chinese in America concerned would be improved.

24. I asked did McCarthy desire return? Answer was he does. Did he feel he being obstructed? Answer was he does. He had said to designated third party that he did. Had third party made representation to his country on case? Answer was he had. Had his govt refused accept those representations in accordance obligations under agreement? Answer was it had. Had third party attempted investigate facts of case? It had; his govt refused permit it do so. There had been most explicit violation of every single aspect of letter our agreed announcement.

25. Wang could not accept this way of presenting problem. He could put matter this way. Asked whether Charles McCarthy committed offenses in China? Answer was yes. Asked if persons who committed offenses should be arrested? Answer was they should. Had Charles McCarthy been tried? Answer was yes. Had he himself admitted his offense? Yes he had. When would he be able get release from prison? There were two answers—one was as soon as sentence expired he would be released. Other was if Chinese justice authorities considered he had shown good behavior and was eligible to be granted earlier release under their legal procedures—then he would be granted release accordingly. Did agreement between us stipulate Charles McCarthy would be released before expiration his sentence? No such stipulation in agreement. Had Chinese Govt acted in conformity with agreement in case Charles McCarthy? Answer is Chinese Govt has.

26. I asked what meaning did agreement have with regard Mr. McCarthy? How was his situation any different from what was before we reached agreement.

27. Wang said difference lay in fact time not come in which his case might be resolved according to that agreement.

28. I just could not follow. It seemed to me he in exactly same position was before we reached that agreement according to Wang’s statement.

29. Wang said blame not on Chinese Govt but on prisoner himself. Blame on prisoner who came China to oppose Chinese people and Govt under cloak missionary work.

30. I did not get point. Agreement did not say it did not apply to those whom Chinese Govt alleges came to China to oppose Chinese people and Govt under cloak missionary work, agreement said it would apply all Americans.

31. Wang said all Americans to whom agreement applied and should be able return under that agreement had already returned. Agreement did not provide all prisoners be able return within prescribed time. Agreement provided that all persons who desired do so should be allowed return their country; however, in my country great number Chinese who desired do so had not been able return. They had not only been unable return country but even their correspondence with families been subject interference by FBI my country. This interference violates fundamental principle of democratic state. This violated fundamental freedom of persons. This exactly violation and breach our agreement. It to be hoped my govt would speedily correct all these actions which in violation agreement all these obstructive activities.

32. I said Wang’s last statement came down to two points. One that agreement applied only to those Americans to whom his govt chose apply it. Other point seemed be they had not applied it to other Americans remaining in their prisons because of what they alleged to be obstruction to Chinese in America desiring return. With regard first point, agreement did not state would be applied to those to whom his government chose apply it. Said applied all Americans. With regard second point, mechanism which Wang himself suggested to determine whether agreement carried out had as far as the US concerned not offered any evidence or even allegation of obstruction. As far as Americans in his country concerned same mechanism had alleged obstruction and had made representation on it which his govt refused accept.

33. Wang did not agree to explanation offered by me. There was difference between obstruction and law breaking. We could not make allegation Chinese Govt obstructed people who broke Chinese law. This not question his govt offering obstructions to those Americans but question those Americans breaking their law. It these Americans who to blame for breaking Chinese law. People who committed offenses must be punished in accordance with law. On other hand he had pointed out many cases and examples obstruction to return of Chinese in America. Absence of representation to my govt did not mean obstructions did not exist.

34. I said seemed awfully good proof to me.

35. Wang replied if all obstructions had been removed then they could say this proof. Was my govt prepared remove requirement for Chinese nationals get Taiwan entry permit. This was long-standing question he had raised for long time and still unresolved. Was it alleged that my govt never made such requirement on Chinese nationals US.

36. I thought a little late to go over all the ground I had previously so carefully gone over with him in regard that matter. I had pointed out to him in any event requirements our immigration laws concerning applications by people who there on temporary status to show they able proceed another destination at end their temporary stay had nothing to do with ability Chinese in US who desire return to do so. However, important fact was no Chinese in US had alleged that in this or any other manner my govt had obstructed his departure from US if he desired do so through channel established that purpose. On other hand, Americans in his country, including most notably Mr. McCarthy, had alleged this. His govt not only refused accept but also refused act upon representations made through channels established in agreement.

37. Wang replied no matter how I explained this matter, so long as requirement for Taiwan entry permit not removed, we could not be regarded as acting in accordance agreement. Other hand no matter how I explained away this matter, I could not confuse question obstruction with question persons who committed crimes.

38. I asked who were we talking about when made agreement? He perfectly well knew then Fr. McCarthy in prison. In fact he formally informed me of that. Not said then agreement was not to apply to Fr. McCarthy. In those weeks of discussion I wasn’t talking of abstract Americans. Both us talking about very specific Americans—those Americans in prisons.

39. Wang said we did not then discuss matter in terms of regarding holding of American offenders as obstruction their return. Had they not resolutely fought against and refused my demand for release these prisoners in definite time? When had he ever agreed persons in this category would be released within given time? Case Charles McCarthy included therein. Did he not make it quite clear at the time cases these persons would have to be dealt with in accordance with substance and nature offenses and also allowances for good behavior? Fact Charles McCarthy not yet released, indicates not yet fulfilled conditions for earlier release.

40. I asked did we not reject and did he not agree to elimination of any distinction in agreement between those he termed as having committed crimes and those who had not? Did not we say in agreement all would be permitted return expeditiously?

41. Wang said that was exactly what his govt doing in dealing with these cases. If his govt not acted this way how could one expect greater part Americans this category able return. He had not said all persons would be released at same time and all together and did not consent do so.

42. I replied we had said they would all be released expeditiously. I did not, my govt did not, and I did not think any reasonable person would think they had been released expeditously. Question not if some or majority, question was if all released expeditiously.

43. Wang replied, talking about expeditious release, I would recall I given him names 103 Chinese students more than year ago, who desired return. After more than year 23 still not yet returned. Did I term this expeditious return? Another 52 persons who desired return and concerning whom request had been made to my side for inquiry; but these persons had not returned. Could anyone consider this expeditious return? In accordance with connotation word “expeditious” Chinese Govt enabled majority Americans to return—not case so far Chinese my country concerned.

44. I said had not given him list 103 persons desired return. Had never so termed it. Had given him list of 103 persons who had been ordered during limited period not depart from US. Those orders issued without regard whether they desired return or not. I had explained that quite clearly at time. Each these persons had been formally officially notified that these orders had been withdrawn and they were entirely free proceed Wang’s country if wanted do so. If they had not done so it because they did not desire do so. If they desired do so and felt obstructed they entirely free contact Indian Embassy. Best my knowledge, none had alleged any obstruction.

45. Wang said any case in present circumstances ordinary Chinese subject to interference in his communication with family, wife and friends and in same way under great mental strain if he desires communicate with Indian Embassy. This one of questions on which he had made repeated representations and still hoped my govt would take effective measures to correct it.

46. I did not see that a man was under much mental strain in dropping letter in letter box or picking up phone to phone Indian Embassy.

47. Wang had nothing further.

48. I suggested Thursday, December 13. He agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–3056. Confidential; Limit Distribution.