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

4. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to Secretary of State Dulles⁰

Washington, February 24, 1958.

SUBJECT

• Reply to Chinese Communists Concerning Geneva Talks

You indicated that you wished to defer a decision on continuation of the Geneva talks until it was known whether during or following the visit of the three mothers to Communist China, any or all of the remaining American prisoners there were released.¹

The Chinese Communists did not release any of the prisoners during the mothers’ visit nor did they give the mothers any reason to hope for early release, beyond their standard statement that the prisoners could be released before termination of their sentence for good behavior. The Indian Ambassador to Peiping, who had been instructed by Nehru to intercede with the Chinese Communists on behalf of the American prisoners, informed our Consul General in Hong Kong that Mao Tsetung had told him only that two prisoners would be released this year. Presumably, these are the two priests whose sentences expire in June. The Indian Ambassador expressed a personal view that the prisoners might receive a “favorable break” in the not too far distant future, but I do not place much weight on this speculative remark.

I think we should, within the next two or three months, resume the talks at the ambassadorial level. They provide an avenue for continuing to press for release of the prisoners. Moreover, given the present worldwide preoccupation with negotiations between East and West, these talks may serve to divert embarrassing pressures to meet with the Chinese Communists in a less advantageous forum.

There is attached (Tab A)² a proposed reply to the Chinese Communist letter of January 14 (Tab B) to be signed by Edwin Martin, as present United States representative, and transmitted to Wang Ping-nan about March 1. This reply would inform the Communists that although we were not able to designate a representative of ambassadorial rank at the present time, we planned to do so as soon as feasible. Peiping would thus be assured that we were not moving to break off the talks, and we would retain flexibility as to when we decide to resume them.

I will consult with EUR and make a recommendation later concerning the ambassador who might best continue the talks.³

Recommendation:

That you approve the proposed reply to the Chinese Communists (Tab A).⁴

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–2458. Secret. Drafted by Clough and Lutkins and cleared with EUR.
1. See Document 1.
2. Not attached to the source text. For text of the March 12 letter from Martin to Wang, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1958, pp. 1131–1132. A copy of the draft is in Department of State, FE/EA Files: Lot 66 D 225, Ambassadorial Discussions with the Chinese Communists; see Supplement.
3. In Robertson’s January 20 memorandum, he recommended Ambassador-designate to Czechoslovakia John M. Allison. In a handwritten note on that memorandum, Deputy Under Secretary of State Robert Murphy suggested Ambassador to Poland Jacob D. Beam, noting that this would facilitate contacts and save time and expense. A February 8 memorandum from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Howard P. Jones to Robertson stated that Murphy still saw advantages in having Beam conduct the talks in Warsaw, since he and Wang “could contact each other informally without the eyes of the world upon them”, offering “a useful channel for communication.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–858)
4. Dulles initialed approval of the recommendation.