77. Telegram 448 from Geneva1
448. From Johnson.
Wang opened this morning’s meeting with statement that if I would immediately agree upon his draft agreement he would before announcement thereof made give me and publicly release results review those cases Americans both prisoners and exit permit cases in which review completed. Was clear to us that qte review unqte not rpt not qte completed unqte cases all Americans. In context satisfied qte completion of reviews unqte meant release but was unable obtain any indication number.
During course much give and take there was strong implication that he was probably prepared accept my original formulation for third party representation.
During course give and take I also obtained from him categorical statement that cases all Americans including category (D) his August 2 list (Downey and Fecteau) being qte reviewed unqte.
In reply I referred again to measures taken by US Government permit departure Chinese, our categorical assurances none prevented from departing and stated I had hoped results of qte review unqte on Chinese side would permit him make same statement to me, that is no American desiring return being detained. I stressed inequality of situation and expressed disappointment early settlement forecast by Chou En-lai had not materialized. I could not consider agenda item one settled until all Americans able return.
[Facsimile Page 2]I then commented on draft agreement stating our original formulation fully and adequately meets situation and that provision for qte investigation upon request of government unqte entirely unnecessary. I said I was not in position accept draft agreement or its present form and reserved right for further comment.
Wang then pressed me to state any other objections. In reply I pointed out second sentence first paragraph his draft offered nothing to Americans detained in China.
I then outlined our thoughts on form of simultaneous unilateral statements giving as rationale those matters “concerned internal affairs” each country. I said any statement we made would include categorical statements I had made to him during course of meeting on freedom Chinese depart from US together with whatever arrangements made [Typeset Page 89] for third party representations. I said I would expect any statement from his side to include whatever action they had taken with regard to Americans and that I would hope and expect I would include categorical statement similar to that we have made concerning departure Chinese together with arrangements for third party representation. I said this was my tentative thinking at the moment not a formal proposal but that I would embody my thoughts into a specific proposal at our next meeting. Wang strongly resisted concept saying it would show we had not been able agree. I pointed out that need not be case, that he had perhaps misunderstood my concept which was that the unilateral statements of which the other would take note would be released by joint agreement. He would not agree to concept, pushing hard for “joint announcement” along lines July 25 statement and our agreement on agenda. I said rather than discuss further would give him concrete suggestion next meeting.
I shared Wang’s concern over amount of time spent agenda item one pointing out it could have immediately and expeditiously been resolved by release all Americans in China. [Facsimile Page 3] This would have “laid sound basis” upon which we could enter into mutually acceptable agreement on third party representation and permit fruitful discussion other practical matters.
Next meeting Tuesday, August 16, 10 am. Comments follow.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1255. Confidential; Niact.↩