Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, China, Volume XIX

145. Telegram From the Embassy in Poland to the Department of State⁰

Warsaw, September 30, 1958, 7 p.m.

494. USUN for Lodge. Beam-Wang Talks. Report 78th meeting.¹

Wang asked open discussion but agreed my opening when I said I would prefer do so. Then read following prepared statement:

In our meetings here you have repeated baseless charge my government has used force to occupy Chinese territory. There is no truth in this assertion. Wherever US forces stationed, they are present only with consent of duly constituted government. Record of US in this respect is clear. We have not occupied territory by force of arms and we are determined oppose attempts by others to do so. US forces are present in Taiwan area with full consent of GRC. Close and cordial relations between US and GRC are matter of historical record, both before and since 1949. US forces are present in Taiwan area today to assist that government in defending its territory against hostile armed attack. No amount playing with words can obscure fact that mission of US forces in Taiwan area is purely defensive.

Who is attacking today in vicinity Quemoy Islands and Matsu Islands, and who is threatening take Taiwan and Penghu by force? It is certainly not forces of US nor those of Republic of China. It is forces of your side which are on the offensive.

This is not first time leaders your side have chosen resort to force as means achieving their objectives. It was by force they first seized power on China mainland. Not long thereafter your armies invaded and conquered Tibet. Then, in 1950, with material and moral support of Soviet Union, your forces took part in attempt conquer Republic of Korea. This assault upon neighboring people and upon UN forces which had come to their defense shocked world and your government was rightly condemned by UN as aggressor. Today your forces are again on offensive. Their attack on Quemoy Islands and Matsu Islands is simply new phase in your side’s long-established policy of resort to force.

But civilized nations of world today, cannot tolerate resort to war to enforce claims against disputed territories or to bring about unification of divided countries. There are many areas where territory in dispute, such as Goa, Kashmir, Antarctica and West New Guinea. There are also divided countries such as Germany, Korea and Vietnam. If in each these cases parties involved were to resort to force in pursuance their conflicting objectives, each with possible outside backing, there would be end to peace and security of all nations and all peoples everywhere. US has found it necessary in past and will not hesitate now or in future to defend principle that claims of nations be adjusted by peaceful means.

When Chou En-lai agreed to resumption these talks, great relief was felt in world because it seemed as though your side had accepted principle of settlement disputes by peaceful negotiation, in accordance with practice of peace-loving and civilized nations. World has been profoundly disappointed your side has continued its attacks and flatly rejected US proposals for cease-fire. Moreover, you have failed make any sincere attempt negotiate. Instead you have insisted upon our total compliance with your demands while completely rejecting our proposals. This is not negotiation.

At last meeting you posed six questions designed as points of departure for spurious attack upon US. These are not the questions in which world really interested. Questions in which world really interested are (1) will shooting in Taiwan Straits be stopped immediately? and (2) will steps be taken to avert likelihood of recurrence such hostilities? World demands affirmative answer both questions.

In light these considerations, US has drawn up revised draft agreed announcement. This proposal takes account of views of both sides. It is honest effort to take first step toward equitable resolution our differences. We commend it to your serious attention in hope early agreement can be reached. (Handed over text agreed announcement, Deptel 352.)²

After reading announcement Wang took 20 minute recess then made following statement:

At previous meetings I repeatedly expressed firm and unequivocal stand my country against proposal your side which is aimed at interference in internal affairs my country and preparation for war. Think your side should no longer entertain any illusions about your cease-fire scheme. However during meetings you still insist on this deceitful proposal of yours which can never be realized. Proposal which you just put forth is instance this stand your side.

We carefully examined draft proposal you put forth just now. Although this document is a bit longer than previous ones, we fail find anything new in these proposals. You have not only not considered our side’s reasonable request but have further exposed your attitude in this new proposal. You still insisting on arbitrary occupation China’s territory Taiwan and intervention China’s internal affairs.

It even more absurd include clause concerning Soviet Union in this paper. Soviet Union great ally China and always sympathetic to reasonable aspirations all peoples. Soviet Union never interferes in sovereign right and territorial integrity of other people. Stand Soviet Union has nothing in common with stand US. It utterly absurd for you to include in this proposal clause concerning Soviet Union.

Can thus be seen proposal you put forth is substantially continuation and development your previous proposals. It still retains its basic character of plan to prepare for war and aggression. Such proposals as I have very clearly repeated cannot be considered or accepted your [our] side.

During previous meetings and today you also attempted justify your occupation China’s territory Taiwan as well as your further interference with recovery such coastal islands Quemoy and Matsu by Chinese people. You tried justify these actions with so-called treaty alliance with so-called Republic of China. It obvious these efforts can only be futile.

Whole world knows that as result of protracted revolutionary struggle Chinese people in 49 overthrew rule of traitorous Chiang Kai-shek clique and founded PRC. Your so-called GRC was long ago replaced by PRC. It quite normal in history various countries for people of a country to overthrow old reactionary regime and found new revolutionary government. World has seen many such instances. For example, only recently Iraqi people overthrew reactionary monarchy and founded new republic and even your government was obliged to recognize new Iraqi Government.

Replacement GRC by PRC was precisely instance of such inevitable historical development. Yet US insists on dealing with traitorous Chiang Kai-shek troops and uses puppets to accomplish aim invading and occupying Chinese territory. Your so-called GRC does not represent Chinese people. Small remnant of traitorous Chiang Kai-shek clique which drawing last breath under protection your Seventh Fleet is nothing but political corpse. At last meeting you went so far as to say this political corpse is recognized by respectable part of world. That indeed mockery of facts by your government, in fact, no matter how many countries you may be able to press-gang to support this political corpse you cannot succeed in preserving its political status. As long as there are 600 million people on one side, whatever signboard you put up it will still be illegal. For Chiang Kai-shek clique represents nobody.

In White Paper published 1949 entitled “US Foreign Relations With China”³ even your State Department had to admit Chiang Kai-shek clique had been repudiated by Chinese people. Liquidation traitorous Chiang Kai-shek clique and accomplishment liberation whole country by Government PRC are realization aspirations entire 600 million people and is China’s domestic affair.

Here would like refer again to fact your government and you have been trying evade, namely, in January 1950 acknowledgment of President Harry S. Truman that liberation of Taiwan by Chinese people is China’s internal affair. He declared publicly “US has no desire obtain special rights or privileges or establish military bases on Formosa nor does it have any intention of intervening with its armed forces in present situation. US will not pursue course which will involve itself in civil conflict in China”.⁴

In fact it is only because your government violated its own pledge and dispatched armed forces to Taiwan on June 27, 1950 scarcely half year after issuance Truman statement, that Chiang Kai-shek clique which has been repudiated by 600 million people, can prolong its moribund existence to present. At last meeting I pointed out relation between your country and Chiang Kai-shek clique is master-slave relation just like relation between Japanese militarists and Pu Yi.⁵ You tried deny at last meeting but in fact it perfectly clear to everyone that as US removes Seventh Fleet, so-called Chiang Kai-shek clique will fade away with wind. Any treaty which US has concluded with puppet shielded at bayonet point is null and void. Japanese militarists also counted on treaty with Pu Yi. But are these so-called treaties of any value. What is more, at time your country invaded and occupied Taiwan your country did not even have single treaty.

You have repeatedly stated here, and proposal you put forth today also says, your aggression against Chinese territory and your attempt at further extending aggression are for purpose fulfilling your treaty alliance and for individual and collective self-defense. That is out and out fraud designed to deceive others as well as yourself.

You also refer to UN Charter and in his recent public speeches your Secretary of State also slanderously charged my nation with violating UN Charter. Struggle China’s people to exercise sovereign rights, liberate own territory, and defend security their own country justified and in keeping with all principles international law and UN Charter. It actually your nation which is violating UN Charter and trampling on international law. UN Charter explicitly provides that UN members should refrain in international relations from threats or use force against territorial integrity or political independence any other state. It precisely US that has invaded and occupied Chinese territory Taiwan by force, violated China’s territorial integrity and further attempted extend its territory by force. Liberation by Chinese people of own territory Taiwan and recovery their inland water islands Quemoy and Matsu entirely China’s domestic affair. UN Charter in explicit terms opposes all intervention in matters within domestic jurisdiction any state. It precisely US which has violated UN Charter by arbitrarily intervening in China’s internal affairs. It utterly preposterous for US attempt abuse principle peaceful settlement international issues for purpose intervening in China’s internal affairs. This attempt constitutes brazen violation UN Charter.

Armed struggle Chinese people against traitorous Chiang Kai-shek has never been international dispute. Recovery by Chinese people of Quemoy Matsu and liberation Taiwan can in no way endanger international peace and security. On contrary it precisely US which is endangering international peace and security. All these acts of US are violation UN Charter.

In your opening statement this afternoon you again uttered charges against my country which are deliberate distortion facts. These charges cannot be accepted. In your statement you mentioned several existing international disputes such as questions of Kashmir and Goa and you even cited artificial division some nations. These disputes do exist but source these disputes has been intervention in international affairs these countries by outside forces which were not entitled intervene in first place. All these disputes would soon be settled if all countries concerned observed provisions UN Charter which explicitly provides against intervention any foreign country in matters within domestic jurisdiction of a state. No amount such examples Ambassador may cite can justify US aggressive acts against China.

You have made number deliberate distortions in your remarks concerning relations between China and US. Fact is that at same time US launched its war aggression against Korea it invaded and occupied China’s territory Taiwan and intensified its intervention in international affairs Vietnam. US intervention entirely unjustified. Your purpose was to strangle young PRC from three fronts. It was only after you invaded and occupied Taiwan and were pushing your forces in Korea to banks of Yalu River that Chinese people could bear it no longer and dispatched volunteers to Korea to aid Korean people. It was entirely righteous of Chinese people to join Korean people resisting aggression. No amount illegal resolutions insulting PRC that you might have railroaded through UN or repetition by your Secretary of State of his old stock of worn out slanders against PRC can change fact of occupation China’s territory.

You termed Chinese people’s liberation own territory an aggression. In your opening statement this afternoon you even went so far as characterize liberation of Chinese province Tibet as conquest. This demonstrates utter ignorance history your part. If that may be called aggression then would it not have been aggression for your countryman George Washington to lead your people in opposing Britain liberating own territory? Would it not have been aggression for Abraham Lincoln to have waged American Civil War to unify US? That is matter of common sense. Just as American people cannot possibly carry out aggression against themselves, Chinese people cannot carry out aggression against themselves. It is aggression only when you Americans invade and occupy territory of another country and interfere with internal affairs another country. You call American aggression against China defense but it may be asked what justification you have in dispatching American forces to Taiwan and Taiwan Straits area, which are situated 10,000 kilometers from US, to carry out defense? If you can find any justification to carry out defense on China’s Taiwan Quemoy Matsu, cannot China carry out defense of Hawaii and Santa Catalina? It may be asked whether your country would permit occupation these islands by another country under pretext defense.

You indulged in talk about renunciation force, yet in practice US has been using threats and armed force against other countries. Since your country has invaded and occupied our territory Taiwan by force, logically speaking therefore you have long been disqualified speak about renunciation force by my country. Notwithstanding this, however, we are still willing sit down and negotiate with you in attempt settle by peaceful negotiation problem arising from your intervention and occupation Taiwan. During Geneva Ambassadorial talks we put forth serious proposals for settlement Sino-American disputes without resorting force. You insisted, however, that we should recognize US claim to so-called right individual and collective self-defense in China’s territory Taiwan. That would be tantamount to recognizing legality your occupation Taiwan and is entirely out of question. That is why Geneva talks were dragged out so long without any result being achieved on this subject. You not only referred to renunciation use force in Taiwan area but even sought expand area of aggression to mainland. As I stated last meeting, since beginning this year when you suspended Geneva talks unilaterally, you simultaneously instigated Chiang Kai-shek to intensify outrageous acts of provocation and sabotage against mainland. Your intrigue has been to let Chiang clique use coastal islands to provoke incidents which you will use as pretexts for carrying out further aggression and provoking war. You attempted deny this true state of affairs but in so doing you unwittingly revealed your true colors even more. You said, and I quote, “Steps have had to be taken to strengthen defense of Ally.” Doesn’t this precisely show that sending reinforcements by Chiang to Quemoy Matsu was entirely instigated by US? Had you not harbored intention provoking aggression why should you have instigated Chiang clique to concentrate its forces at Quemoy Matsu at immediate approaches to Amoy and Foochow?

At present you making much noise about cease-fire. Proposal you put forth today also talks about cease-fire. Your purpose is to extend aggression and prepare for war. Reason you put forth so-called cease-fire proposal is that you know full well we will not agree to use [US?] unreasonable demand. You envision distortion campaign to confuse world public opinion. Not a few such confusing remarks have been made by you in these meetings. If ever we should accept that preposterous proposal of your side you would, in first place, gain so-called individual collective self-defense. That is right you have never claimed before in Quemoy Matsu. It would thus enable you push perimeter your aggression from Taiwan Straits to Chinese mainland at Quemoy Matsu. According to both your preposterous proposals we would have to reduce forces in mainland area adjacent to Quemoy Matsu. This would be tantamount to asking us bite off hands and await further aggression.

We Chinese people have not forgotten there existed something similar to cease-fire between Manchukuo and rest of China, but Chinese people know such appeasement aggression can only invite further catastrophes. You want to follow Japanese aggressors, but will never succeed. Last meeting you said cease-fire is generally accepted method stopping hostilities and ending war. That entirely irrelevant and pointless remark. It obvious to all that military operations taken by Chinese people against Chiang forces on Quemoy Matsu cannot remotely cause international tension. It only when US insists on intervening and carries out military provocations that grave danger war arises. At present issue is not one of cease-fire but of US playing with fire. In order carry out aggression against Quemoy Matsu you would not scruple to push world toward war. Such a policy of yours is being increasingly condemned by people of world, who accuse you of being war monger. You are in fact engaging in war mongering.

In this connection I wish mention in particular you have not only not ceased your incursions in our inland waters but have encouraged Chiang’s aircraft to make incursions into China’s air space. The Sidewinder guided missile provided by your forces has even been put into use. That is extremely serious matter. We will not tolerate it. We will certainly deal Chiang’s air force punitive counter-blows. Question now is very obvious. US must immediately stop its military provocations and war threats and pull out all its armed forces from Taiwan and Taiwan Straits. That is most urgent demand of present situation and fundamental solution of problem.

I replied: I have rarely heard such extreme arguments in defense of your untenable position. It certainly surprising to receive lecture on UN Charter from party who has violated Charter. It also surprising to be accused warmongering and war preparations when it is our side which is trying put stop to hostilities. You accuse US of using force when actually it is your side which started use of force and is continuing use of force against territory of Ally. Our forces are long way from their own territory in support of principle of collective individual self-defense. This necessary for maintenance of peace. If use force against free people is permitted to take place without resistance soon no people will be safe from aggression. You continue to mention alleged violations by US forces of Chinese territorial waters and air space. We have made it amply clear you are not entitled to extend your territorial waters to extent you have. That in itself is attempt to seize territory illegally.

What we are seeking most urgently is means preventing expansion hostilities by putting end to fighting now going on. You are continuing make many false accusations against US. I have refuted them in past. I believe it does not serve any useful purpose to repeat them in form of statements you are making. You mention our side is carrying on campaign distortion with object, in event of cease-fire, of planning further aggression. Complete contrary is case. Your description our proposal as one designed for war purposes can hardly be based on careful study our proposal.

You will note that it proposes first cessation of hostilities, second termination of provocation or harassing acts, third provision for possibility of reductions of forces, fourth resort to negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement.

These steps can hardly be regarded as justification for your argument that our plan is cover for aggressive action. No reasonable man could pretend they are such. They are intended help put an end to fighting and prevent recurrence of possibility further fighting.

Wang replied: In detailed statement I made this afternoon I explicitly explained stand our side with regard unreasonable position you have taken. Our arguments not, as you have alleged, irrelevant to discussion but are basic issues in dispute now before us. Whole world knows and it is obvious to them present tension in Taiwan Straits area arises solely as result US intervention and occupation Chinese territory Taiwan. They cannot believe peaceful professions by US while US making intensive preparations for war. A matter which is particularly important and serious is that US has lately made available to Chiang a number of modern weapons such as Sidewinder guided missile which used recently. This constitutes very grave provocation indeed and US should bear responsibility all consequences that may arise from this. I have already made my comments on proposal you put forth this afternoon. It would be impossible for any reasonable person to agree solution should be based on recognition US so-called right of individual and collective self-defense on territory of another country. I will reserve further comments this respect until later meetings.

I replied: You have mentioned new weapon which we call Side-winder and claim its introduction into present hostilities has in some way rendered situation more grave. We find it hard to follow your reasoning. This missile is used only to fire at aircraft. How can one say that several such missiles fired at aircraft makes situation more serious? It is rather thousands of heavy artillery shells which your armed forces have been firing at Quemoy Matsu which makes situation serious. The shells have killed both soldiers and innocent civilians and done far more damage than missiles you referred to. It is these daily heavy bombardments which must be halted if situation is to improve, best way of improving situation both on land and in air is to put immediate stop to fighting.

I regret you refused accept our latest proposal in conciliatory spirit with which it was offered. I am disappointed find your side apparently believes these talks are not for purpose of true negotiation but for purpose of making extreme accusations against US. You furthermore have been demanding under threats of force that US abandon its Ally, withdraw from Taiwan and permit territory its Ally to be seized by force. I hope you will make it clear to your government that US Government cannot agree to this demand. No matter how often they may be repeated my government cannot accept them.

Wang replied: Equally I should like say it is impossible for us to try to get through these war proposals under cloak of cease-fire. I have raised matter of US supplying new weapons to Chiang forces, such weapons including Sidewinder guided missiles, and I pointed out this is serious case of provocation and demonstrates utter falsity peaceful professions of US and demonstrates US is trying expand war under cover its peaceful professions. If US is not ready to eradicate evil sources of tension in accord with a proposal we have made by withdrawing all its armed forces from Taiwan Straits; if US continues to insist on its ceasefire demands in these talks it will demonstrate US is not willing to arrive at solution of problem.

I replied: I think we made in our proposal honest attempt set forth case fairly. We believe it contains fair statement of facts. It recognizes dispute between parties involved and all aspects of dispute. It then tries set forth logical step whereby dispute can be rendered less dangerous and perhaps eventually settled after hostilities have ceased. It envisages mutual measures of prevention provocation which might be claimed by either party. It envisages possible reduction forces both sides to relieve tension once fighting has stopped. Furthermore it suggests choice broad range of means of settling or pacifying dispute. We should be interested in knowing eventually if you reject our proposal in part or in all its elements. We feel it does offer many possibilities of progress which can be achieved after fighting stopped.

Wang replied: If US really interested in reducing danger in Taiwan Straits and is sincerely seeking solution why not withdraw its forces from this area. This is source all problems this area. If US continues maintain its forces Taiwan area it is showing no sincerity, no interest in reducing danger in area and in achieving settlement.

I replied: I think we have made it clear why we cannot withdraw our forces in present situation. That has been purpose my explanation. It affects basic issue of maintaining peace.

Wang replied: I don’t see how stationing military forces on territory of another country could be for maintaining peace. Maybe peace as conceived by US is entirely different thing from peace as we know it.

I replied: US forces are in many places at request friends and Allies and are there to assist in defense these Allies in pursuit collective security. Alternative would be that many countries would be subject to threats and dangers of loss independence through use force and threats of force.

Wang replied: Attack by force actually comes from US. It is US that is trying deprive other countries their freedom through use of force. Securing military bases by use violence on territory others cannot be described pursuit peaceful purposes. Can only be described as naked aggression. To characterize such armed aggressive acts as maintenance or defense peace could be equal to characterizing day as night. Such distorting remarks cannot and will not convince anybody.

I replied: If our treaties for mutual security and overseas bases were set up by use force I believe our Senate and our people would have heard about it and would have objected. I cannot accept implications that these arrangements are made for any other but defensive purposes.

Wang replied: US stationed its armed forces everywhere in world has already caused opposition of people everywhere. I am sure you have already noticed this fact.

I replied: I have nothing further to say.

Wang then proposed that we meet Saturday, October 4 at 3 p.m., to which I agreed.

Beam

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–3058. Secret; Niact; Limit Distribution. Transmitted in eight sections. Received at 6 p.m. Repeated to USUN and niact to Taipei.
1. Beam sent a summary report of the meeting in telegram 492 from Warsaw and his comments in telegram 493, both September 30. (Ibid.; see Supplement)
2. Document 139
3. Department of State, United States Relations With China (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949).
4. Reference is to President Truman’s statement of January 5, 1950; for text, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1950, p. 11.
5. P’u Yi, who abdicated as emperor of China in 1912, was emperor of the Japanese puppet regime in Manchuria from 1934 to 1945.