91. Telegram 499 from Geneva1

[Facsimile Page 1]

499. From Johnson.

At 7th meeting August 16 I began by referring to Wang’s statement last meeting that he desired deal concretely with problem of return civilians of respective countries rather than in abstract terms. Said I agreed entirely this approach and I had come here to seek concrete, [Typeset Page 110] practical way of effecting return to US of American nationals detained his country and was prepared make every reasonable effort meet his viewpoint concerning Chinese nationals US. With regard to latter he had made certain proposals and I had immediately informed him my government had taken most far-reaching action within its power to meet basic question raised by his proposals. That is US Government had rescinded all measures heretofore restricting departure some few Chinese and there now was no measure preventing any Chinese desiring do so from freely departing. In additional effort meet his viewpoint I had told him consideration being given his proposal on third party representation.

I continued I had consistently attempted make it clear I expected his government would take similar measures regarding Americans detained his country. That is take whatever measures necessary permit return to US of all who desired return thus equalizing situation two groups nationals this regard in respective countries. Said I had tried make clear I not attempting dictate what action his government should take to bring about this result since this obviously something only his government could and should decide. Pointing out this was 7th meeting and 3rd week these talks, I said I did not know of single American civilian previously detained his country who had been able depart since beginning of talks. He had only informed me cases all detained Americans being reviewed and that [Facsimile Page 2] he would inform me results those cases in which reviews completed if I would meet certain conditions. I commented that action taken by US Government with respect Chinese nationals in US was without conditions.

I said I found myself puzzled by situation and amount of time it was taking to settle problem, particularly in view statement his Prime Minister that number American civilians in China small and question easily settled. Prime Minister also had said it should be possible reach first of all reasonable settlement question return civilians their respective countries. I had been patiently hoping and expecting his government would take action to bring about this result but my hopes thus far in vain.

I told Wang I had given much thought to seeking resolution situation we faced and had also attempted meet his desires with respect to single agreed text. I then read text of draft agreed announcement (Mytel 463). I pointed out language in draft identical with respect each country. I was not proposing or suggesting anything with respect Americans his country that I was not prepared to say with respect Chinese in US. It seemed to me this agreed announcement fully met needs nationals both countries on basis full equality and reciprocity. It was based in large part upon proposal he first made August 2 and also contained much from his [Typeset Page 111] August 11 draft proposal. I concluded I was prepared immediately agree with him on this draft and announce it today.

Following 10 minute recess requested by Wang, he stated he had made preliminary comparison my draft with his August 11 draft. He noted my draft did not include a few points in his.

1. Quoting first paragraph his August 11 draft, Wang declared we should not object provisions this paragraph. At last meeting he had stated that under condition that agreement reached on question return civilians both sides Chinese Government would be in position inform me of results investigation cases of Americans on which investigation completed. In my draft no mention made of nationals involved in civil or criminal cases. International law recognizes right of sovereign state exercise jurisdiction over civil or criminal cases in its [Facsimile Page 3] territory. To demand a state refrain from exercising jurisdiction is obviously infringement on its sovereignty. In past used to be such things as extraterritoriality in China but such unreasonable things now gone forever. Wang said I had repeatedly indicated my aim was to secure return all Americans in China who desired return. As he had repeatedly pointed out all those not involved in civil or criminal cases able to leave anytime. Even with respect to Americans involved in unfinished cases, Chinese Government would review cases and grant lenient treatment making allowance for nature of crime and conduct of individual in accordance Chinese legal process. Such persons could leave promptly on completion their cases. He was sure I could appreciate sincerity of this offer. However if my intention was that American nationals now or in future should be permitted leave prior to settlement their cases he must point out frankly this impossible. There might also be few cases of Chinese in US involved in civil or criminal cases though he didn’t know of any. Could be seen situation two sides quite different. US maintained liaison station Hong Kong to gather information on American citizens in China. He had also given me information on all American nationals in China. However his government had no liaison station close to US and he had been unable obtain list Chinese nationals from me. Hence he not in position know whether any Chinese nationals involved in civil or criminal cases. He did not believe I had intended propose Chinese nationals involved in civil or criminal cases should never come under jurisdiction American law and should be permitted leave prior settlement their cases. Hence he held that reference in draft to nationals involved in civil or criminal cases was reasonable and applied equally both sides.

2. Reference was made in draft to cases American nationals previously detained in China. He must point out as general principle Chinese Government did not detain American nationals in China. So there was nothing in common with the situation in US where orders issued to [Typeset Page 112] prevent departure Chinese students. All Americans in China applying to depart granted exit permits promptly. Where such application involved procedural questions they granted permission promptly on completion procedural question. Even in case American civilians violating Chinese law they dealt with in lenient spirit and in accordance legal procedure. Therefore he must point out allegation that Chinese Government had detained American nationals was quite contrary to fact.

[Facsimile Page 4]

3. In August 11 draft he had proposed government of each side might on behalf its nationals request intervention of entrusted power in order solve difficulties in connection their departure or conduct investigation so as to make representations on basis investigation. He considered this proposal reasonable and necessary. After implementation of third party arrangement it goes without saying that nationals could request without restriction intervention by third party. However among those desiring return might be some who wanted to let their government know their difficulties. In past there were number of Chinese nationals who appealed his government assist their return. Dr. Tsien was one such case. Under such circumstances government concerned obligated to request third party take necessary action. Furthermore since outset of discussion first agenda item he and I had been making representation on behalf nationals each side desiring return. Obviously we could not make such direct representations regularly as there were no diplomatic relations between the two countries. After implementation third party representation arrangement questions of nationals desiring return could always be referred to third country. Hence it was necessary provide for action of national’s country on his behalf.

4. Wang added he objected to one minor point of wording, the reference to “Chinese mainland”. He did not think this term appropriate and suggested replace with “China”. Wang concluded these were preliminary comments and could be regarded as amendments to my draft. He was ready listen my comments and if I agreed his few amendments he hoped agreement could be reached today.

I replied major difficulty between us seemed paragraph one. We both agreed we were here to deal with practical situation—that of our nationals in other country. I had tried in paragraph one to avoid theoretical concepts and issues and tried to keep to practical situation. I didn’t think anything in paragraph one infringed on or raised question of sovereignty or jurisdiction. This was one reason it contained two parts. It simply a statement each government would make in its own right and in full recognition its sovereignty. It was not intended to establish any theoretical concept for future. Intent was to deal with practical situation now facing us under conditions of complete reciprocity and equality. I had carefully tried avoid any attempt [Facsimile Page 5] dictate to or demand of his [Typeset Page 113] government what it should do. Only his government could and should decide measures to take to deal with practical situation.

I pointed out I had not used the word “detained” in agreement and as used in my statement meant to refer only to those Americans prevented from leaving China. Whatever the reasons we both recognized that Americans being prevented from leaving his country. I was not suggesting his government say anything my government was unwilling to say. As I had pointed out, his paragraph one did not in any way solve problem American nationals.

[Facsimile Page 6]

I had thought it possible we could quickly reach agreement on some form that would resolve situation our nationals. Seemed to me my paragraph did that. I didn’t hold any brief for exact wording but thought contained there must be embodied in any announcement. I had come here to discuss return of American nationals. Statement their cases being reviewed did not bring about their return. I was not suggesting how Wang should handle matter but asked him how we were to solve first item, that is, return of our nationals.

I said these were my preliminary remarks, that I was always willing consider minor changes in wording. As for term “China mainland” if he preferred to substitute “People’s Republic of China” would not object.

Referring to Wang’s desire that draft announcement provide for action by individual’s government on his behalf I repeated my statement at last meeting that this unnecessary. Said Wang had pointed out some nationals in past had written directly to his government. However if arrangement we were suggesting were in effect this would be unnecessary as Chinese in US could communicate directly with Indian Embassy. I pointed out my draft specifically provided that representation by the Indian Embassy on behalf of Chinese nationals would only be undertaken if desired by his government.

Wang said problem lies in first paragraph of proposed agreement. First paragraph his draft already included idea of ours. Of course he agreed we were here to resolve practical issues rather than discuss theoretical concepts. Two points were involved. One that both sides declare nationals of each in other desiring return be allowed to do so without restriction [Facsimile Page 7] and other that any such national involved in civil or criminal case might also return as soon as his case settled. There was no intention include anything unfair to one side. Merely attempt settle practical issues. Point to keep in mind was mutual respect of each for other’s law or sovereignty. Wang said he had not been in US and not familiar with situation there but could easily imagine case of a foreign national doing business there who happened incur debt he unable to clear. Could US Government allow him leave before he had cleared debt? Suppose foreign national driving automobile killed someone. Could American Government permit him leave without [Typeset Page 114] first settling case? He hoped I was considering problem from both sides instead just one. He was sure both of us willing seek formula to solve problem facing us. First paragraph his draft should be acceptable since not harmful either side.

I replied I had never suggested cases of Americans should be settled outside framework his law. I understood his viewpoint. However I had understood from public statement his Prime Minister that since American cases few they could be settled easily and promptly. I assumed he desired to do so within framework his law. I had tried to find formula which would accomplish result I was seeking and still not go beyond framework his law. There might be other ways to do this but this was my idea.

Wang replied that statement by Prime Minister Chou and provisions of first paragraph were of course within framework of laws of sovereign state permitting departure of those nationals who desired go except those involved in civil or criminal cases. Prime Minister’s statement was put forth in spirit conciliation in order settle questions between two countries.

Wang continued that he recalled when we first met last year I had inquired whether Chinese legal procedure provided for commutation of sentences or pardon. He had replied that in cases persons violating Chinese law Chinese Government could [Facsimile Page 8] consider commutation in light degree of crime and person’s conduct. Also recent release of American airmen provided clear example this regard. They already sentenced but to give these talks good atmosphere and as token goodwill to American people, Chinese Government had granted early release. Provisions in first paragraph his draft very reasonable providing those desiring return may do so and those violating law or involved in civil cases may promptly return upon settlement their cases. Suppose American merchant in China should be involved in debt case. Chinese Government willing help him clear debts and resolve case so that he can return at early date. Chinese Government always willing give greatest cooperation help settle these questions. In light all this he hoped his paragraph one could be retained in joint announcement.

I asked Wang how he felt my paragraph departed in principle from statements he had made. It didn’t deny Chinese Government’s right to handle matters any way it desired. It simply stated solution to practical problem.

Wang then suggested amending my paragraph by inserting second sentence his paragraph. I pointed out second sentence his paragraph took away from American nationals everything granted them in rest of paragraph since American nationals prevented from departing China were described by him as involved in crimes or civil cases. So far as Americans concerned, this put us back where we started.

[Typeset Page 115]

Wang denied this could be regarded as returning us to status quo ante. He repeated he only wanted indicate that both sides do not restrict return of civilians and that persons involved in civil or criminal cases could return as soon as cases completed. This applied both sides equally and he hoped I would agree.

I replied I couldn’t agree since it left practical situation of detained Americans in exactly same situation as when talks began.

Wang then proposed I study his proposed amendment to see if we could agree on text at next meeting.

[Facsimile Page 9]

I replied I would gladly study it but could not see how it solved question my nationals his country. How were we to resolve practical problem of return American nationals? I said Wang had mentioned the eleven fliers. We had our own opinion concerning that and I didn’t want to engage in controversy. However I understood although all were sentenced to different terms that all released together. It seemed to me would not be impossible find solution to rest of American cases. Said I would be glad to hear Wang’s ideas next meeting on problem I was here to discuss, namely return of Americans. Added I had made my best effort find formula to meet his viewpoint.

Wang commented he hoped I would note that comments he had made were not only of benefit to one side but both. He hoped hear at next meeting results my consideration his comments.

Wang then said would like to raise another point. He had noted lately propaganda campaign had been launched regarding release of 11 airmen in order slander Chinese people. This propaganda provoked feelings of Chinese people. Since talks began Chinese Government had repeatedly made clear conciliatory attitude. Chinese public opinion always cautious regarding progress these talks. If one were to draw on question of mistreatment there would be no end to his recounting miserable treatment of Chinese People’s Volunteers captured in Korea. He had avoided raising this sort of question since it would not be in interest present talks. He only wanted express feeling on their part which he hoped I would note.

I replied I didn’t know Wang’s motive in rising this matter. First, I didn’t know what he meant by “propaganda campaign”. All I had seen were factual interviews and accounts of the men released. I told Wang he was perfectly aware American press practice and our free press. Also perfectly aware US Government could not, even if it would, prevent publication such accounts. Furthermore these men’s accounts not unique. Almost every person released from prison his country has given similar accounts. Fault does not lie with these accounts but in treatment that gave rise to them. Accounts of eleven fliers had tremendously increased anxiety of American people [Facsimile Page 10] over those Americans remaining [Typeset Page 116] in his country. This made it all the more important to find solution for return those who remain. Said I had no desire discuss this with Wang but since he had raised it I had been forced to do so. I didn’t see how it contributed to solution of problems we had come here to solve.

Wang said he didn’t intend for us to debate this question and had raised point only to remind me there should be conciliatory atmosphere around our talks. As things stood, if anti-Chinese propaganda allowed continue it would not contribute but do harm to our discussions. If I had any concern of this sort he hoped I would tell him of it. He was simply being very frank and telling me what they felt. He saw no reason to engage in further debate here.

Next meeting August 18, 10 a.m.

Gowen
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–1655. Secret; Limit Distribution.