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

78. Telegram 452 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 13, 1955, 6 p.m.

452. From Johnson.

At sixth meeting, August 13, 10 a.m., Wang led off reading prepared statement. Said at last meeting he had advanced draft agreement concerning return civilians both sides to their respective countries, based on arrangement I had suggested. He considered that although arrangement could fully meet requirements American nationals in China could not fully meet those of Chinese nationals US. Nevertheless in interest reaching agreement he had basically accepted my proposal. Was regrettable I had been unable promptly adopt his draft agreement last meeting.

Wang continued I had stated last meeting that measures taken regarding Chinese nationals fully met desires Chinese side and that no practical difficulties delayed departure Chinese nationals from US. This not in accordance facts. As he had already pointed out to date Chinese nationals especially students encountered all sorts obstacles to leaving US. In every case of Chinese students who wanted return but whose departure had been restricted many still unable to return up until now. How could this be construed as meeting requirements Chinese side? While he had furnished information all Americans in China I had failed provide list all Chinese US. How could this be construed as fully meeting requirements Chinese side? He had also pointed out third party arrangement did not fully meet their needs. Therefore it could not be construed as fully meeting his request. Nevertheless he endeavoring reach agreement in spirit conciliation.

Wang said at last meeting I had raised question public opinion. As he had already pointed out, if status Americans in China could be known to American people in its entirety he believed they would realize treatment these Americans just and lenient. However in present American propaganda many things gravely provoked feeling Chinese people. For example, Chinese Government took initiative release 11 airmen. As result American newspapers and even official spokesmen had seen fit direct all sort slanders against Chinese Government. Up to present Chinese people viewed all such utterly unreasonable slanders with extreme restraint. If one were to talk of things provoking public opinion he would have to raise question of thousands Chinese volunteers from Korea still detained. This caused strong feeling on part Chinese people. However his side had refrained from raising this question both outside and inside talks for if both sides dwelt on this type question results would be propaganda debate unfavorable to talks.

Wang said Chinese Government had released 11 airmen on eve of talks for purpose creating favorable effect on talks. Wang said he had repeatedly expounded reasonable and lenient policy of Chinese Government toward Americans in China. During year from initiation talks last year to present, 38 Americans had left China as result review their cases by Chinese Government. He had also informed me that Chinese Government now reviewing cases Americans in China and that he would advise me of results. In interest speedily reaching agreement on return civilians both sides and in spirit of conciliation, he willing make still another effort. Declared he “hereby instructed” inform me that under condition of an agreement on return civilians both sides (it was clear this referred to representation arrangement) Chinese Government prepared inform US side on results of cases of Americans in China review of whose cases completed. He would also agree to announcement of results this review prior to announcement on agreement regarding return civilians both sides.

When I asked Wang to clarify this statement he said his government had basically accepted an arrangement proposed by me and had worked it out in practical form. If we could reach agreement on this draft agreement he could promptly inform me of results of review cases of those Americans on whom reviews completed. If agreement could be reached at today’s meeting he could tell me results today.

I said I had understood at second meeting when he gave me names of Americans in China divided into various categories that his statement concerning reviewing cases and informing me of results did not apply to those persons under category (D) described as American military personnel committing crimes. I also mentioned our previous exchange on this in which I had pointed out that classification two persons in this category was erroneous as they were in fact civilians.

Wang replied as he had repeatedly informed me his government prepared review all cases involving Americans in China. Asked to repeat this statement he said reviews not confined to any single category of Americans but applied to all and repeated “all cases being reviewed”.

I said to Wang we had come here to discuss return of civilians to their respective countries. I had informed him measures taken by my country including the one man he had mentioned as being detained. Said it was difficult for me to understand why it not possible for him to do same regarding American nationals his country. If he was in position now to inform me under certain conditions regarding steps taken regarding some of our nationals it was obviously not completion of review procedure that prevented our being given this information. I would hope that results he able give me of review these cases would be such that he could make same statement to me as I made to him. That is that his government not preventing departure any American in China who desired return to US. I had told him categorically my government had taken all necessary remaining steps to permit return of any Chinese nationals without exception to his country. At outset of talks I hoped and expected he could make same statement to me regarding Americans in China. My government took action it did regarding Chinese nationals in US in order promptly dispose of question under agenda item one. I said it difficult reconcile situation still facing American nationals in China with statement of his Prime Minister to which he had referred that number of Americans in China small and question could be easily settled.

I was expecting it possible equalize situation our two groups of nationals and thus lay basis for mutually acceptable agreement on third party representation. That was best way lay ground for discussion next agenda item.

Referring to Wang’s draft agreement I said it went considerably beyond scope of suggestion I had told him being considered by my government. I reminded him my suggestion was that if any Chinese civilian in US felt he being prevented from leaving he could communicate with Indian Embassy which would take appropriate action. I stressed this would apply to any Chinese civilian in US and that there would be no hindrance whatsoever in their communicating with Embassy any way they wished. We would expect any American civilian in China would have same right with respect to British Embassy there. If this done it seemed entirely unnecessary provide for action at request individual’s government. Only each individual himself knew whether in fact he desired return and whether he felt he being prevented from doing so by government his country of residence. I believe formulation which I said my government considering fully and adequately met situation. Therefore I unable accept his draft agreement in present form.

I continued that during talk each of us had talked about measures which our governments had been considering or willing to take, including question third party representation. It seemed almost all these things involved internal matters each country. US had already taken action regarding some these matters as I had said. Said Wang had informed me certain actions his government has taken or willing take. What I was leading up to was form of any understanding we might reach. Seemed to me might be most practicable each make public statement of action we had taken including action on third party representation question. Each could take note in such public statement of statements made by other. While we would agree to making of statements and they would appear together this method would not involve us in same problems as trying to reach agreement on any one text. We would exchange texts of statements each proposed to make, the two texts to embody understanding reached here. They would appear together but would not be in form agreement.

I said what I have in mind was a statement that Ambassador Wang had informed me his government had taken such and such steps regarding Americans in China and making such and such arrangements regarding third party representation. I would make similar statement that US Government had taken such and such steps regarding Chinese nationals US and making such and such arrangements regarding third party representation. My statement regarding Chinese in US would repeat assurances which I had given him here, that no Chinese desiring to leave US being prevented and I would expect him to make similar statement regarding Americans in China. I concluded that this only my tentative thinking and not formal proposal but I hoped incorporate it in exact form for next meeting.

Wang inquired whether I differed in principle with respect to his draft agreement.

I replied that as I had pointed out I differed on one point. It seemed entirely unnecessary provide for action at request of individual’s government. I reserved right make further comment later on draft.

Wang declared we had already held six sessions on agenda item one and that his side not satisfied that so much time spent on it. From beginning he had given complete list Americans in China but American side failed reciprocate. First paragraph draft agreement sets out very clearly that nationals residing in other country wishing to return their respective countries entitled to do so. Said we should not discuss return civilians in abstract but find ways settle their return. As he had already stated he had basically accepted our arrangement and naturally was prepared to listen to our opinion on his draft agreement which was prepared on basis arrangement suggested by US side. He felt there should be concrete ideas on all points rather than abstract. He could perceive only three possible alternatives regarding draft agreement, namely rejection, acceptance or amendment. Since original arrangement had been put forward by American side fourth meeting, he felt it difficult understand why I could not form explicit opinion concerning draft agreement.

Wang continued he could not agree to separate announcements. It was very clear now as result joint declaration our governments that as result initiative taken by US Government we were able sit down together at Geneva. Furthermore at very beginning of talks joint announcement had been made concerning agenda. These two communiques very well received by world opinion. They were directed toward finding ways and means to solve questions facing us.

Said he was puzzled that since we had agreed on common way to find settlement these problems we could not agree to joint announcement. Effect of separate announcement on public opinion would be that we had failed find common method settle return of nationals. Impression would be each side had own way instead of common method which would be reverting to original situation before discussions began. It is not expressing sincerity to suggest separate announcement on this question. This is not first time our governments have made joint announcements or statements. He could not understand why today I should suddenly find I could not agree to joint statement. Said my suggestion was not conducive to progress present talks.

I said possibly I had not made myself clear. I was not suggesting that announcements not be issued together but referred to form they should take. I said that rather than discuss further I would give him concrete proposal next time.

Referring to draft agreement I said I did not see it solved problem of Americans. Second sentence of first paragraph left every American now being detained in exactly same situation as at beginning our talks. I shared his concern regarding amount of time spent on first agenda item. Also agreed it of little use discuss abstract principles. Said we have practical situation to resolve. First agenda item was return to their countries of civilians desiring to return. Simple and quick way to resolve this. I could not feel so far as Americans concerned agenda item one completed until all Americans in China desiring to return were able to return.

Wang replied it unnecessary again say anything on departure Americans from China. He had repeatedly said cases of Americans in China under review and he would advise me results of review. He wanted me to believe that he would do whatever he said he would do and anything he not in position to do he would not say. For instance, in case American airmen they not released as results these talks but done by initiative on Chinese side to establish favorable atmosphere. As to form for announcement of draft agreement he was ready to listen to any opinion I had. Said there were already two precedents for joint statements or communiques which were very good examples.

Next meeting Tuesday, Aug 16, 10 a.m.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1355. Confidential.