396.1 GE/6–1054

No. 212
The Under Secretary of State (Smith) to the Department of State1

confidential
niact

Secto 415. Johnson again met with Wang Ping-nan this morning on question detained Americans. Composition meeting same as that of June 5 (Secto 385)2 except that Communists brought stenographer. Meeting took place in larger room at Palais at their request.

Johnson opened meeting describing again categories and numbers of detained Americans and handed Wang lists of names for each category, including 18 Air Force and 11 Navy and Coast Guard personnel. Stressed these lists based on best information our disposal but may be others detained in which case would like to have information. Requested that all persons named on lists be released at earliest opportunity.

Wang noted Johnson statement re Americans and then read from prepared statement. Said question US citizens detained China and Chinese detained US not difficult solve if both sides have sincerity. Claimed US citizens free reside China carrying on business [Page 465] so long as obeyed laws and can leave any time if not involved civil or criminal cases. Since establishment Communist regime 1485 Americans left China—582 in 1950, 727 in 1951, 143 in 1953, 33 in 1953 [1954]. Chinese Government and people always friendly American people and no one prevented leaving China because American. Few Americans, however, had engaged espionage and sabotage, taken part in “Chiang Kai-shek civil war” or violated Chinese territorial air and waters. These prosecuted according law which duty of sovereign state. Their sentences based on crimes committed. As to lists imprisoned Americans, Wang said would examine them and reply at next meeting. Said wished to take up subject question Chinese students at next meeting.

Johnson asked Wang whether Communists had any provision for issuing pardons or commuting sentences which might permit early release imprisoned Americans. Wang replied he would look into this question and answer at next meeting.

Johnson said Communist statement to press re detained Chinese students differed greatly our information and offered present facts. Wang replied had seen our press statements re detained Chinese students which at variance with facts. Johnson suggested they supply names and addresses Chinese alleged detained US and pointed out he knew of no Chinese imprisoned in US. Wang merely replied would discuss this problem next meeting.

Johnson then noted Chinese Communist press spokesman in Geneva had indicated willingness Communists transmit letters from relatives imprisoned Americans. Pointing out prisoners hitherto held incommunicado and relatives unable obtain any information, asked what mechanics of communication with prisoners would be.

Communists had apparently anticipated question communication with prisoners would be raised since Wang reverted to prepared statement. This blamed inability relatives communicate with prisoners on bad state of relations between US and Communist China for which US must bear entire blame. Since direct contacts now established, however, Communists will as from today arrange exchange of mail between imprisoned civilians and relatives. Said relatives should address letters to prisoners in care “Red Cross Society of China, Peking, China”. Wang agreed prisoners could reply by same channel, but was non-committal when Johnson asked that prisoners be notified immediately so that they would not have to await letters from relatives before writing.

Johnson also asked whether provision for communication with prisoners would apply to military personnel being held. Wang stated military personnel constituted separate question which would be discussed later. Johnson asked whether arrangements [Page 466] could be made for relatives send food parcels or money to prisoners Wang replied would have to discuss with Chinese Red Cross and let us know later.

Johnson made statement (pursuance Tosec 270 [370])3 re our desire for Trevelyan’s (or Ford) presence at next meeting due his helpfulness in past and need keep informed for future. In brief discussion that followed, Wang termed presence of Trevelyan “unnecessary” as question had to be decided by “two sides” in making it cleared that they did not want Trevelyan present. In response to Johnson’s specific inquiry as to whether Chinese “objected” to presence Trevelyan, Wang again made it clear did not desire presence Trevelyan by saying Trevelyan would not be here long and there would be “many more meetings”. Trevelyan stated he glad to be of assistance but felt he could not attend meetings unless both sides agreed.

Saying that a little time would be needed to examine our lists and obtain information, Wang requested next meeting 10:00 a.m., June 15, to which we agreed.

Comments follow.

Smith
  1. Repeated for information to Hong Kong, London, and Taipei.
  2. Document 210.
  3. See footnote 3, supra.