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

339. Telegram 1056 from Geneva¹

Geneva, November 3, 1955, 9 p.m.

1056. From Johnson.

1. I opened twenty-fourth meeting today by presenting prepared statement on implementation of item one, as follows:

A. Mr. Ambassador, I was pleased to learn after our last meeting that two imprisoned Americans had been released—Miss Harriet Mills and Father Armand Proulx. It is encouraging to see that appropriate measures have been taken to permit return of two of 19 Americans. I earnestly hope and expect that release of these 2 will be followed by expeditious release of the remainder as provided in agreed announcement.

B. I was also gratified to learn that day before our last meeting British Charge in Peking was informed that he could, in accordance with agreed announcement, visit and correspond with Americans in prison. This is another gratifying indication that some steps are being taken to implement agreed announcement and to enable UK Charge to undertake his functions.

C. I must add, however, that I was surprpsed that British Charges visits and correspondence with imprisoned Americans is to be in conformity with “rules and regulations governing prisoners’ receiving and corresponding with relatives.” Of course, British Charge is not relative but official of his govt charged under agreed announcement with specific official functions. I expect that he will not be restricted by these regulations in performance of his official functions under agreed announcement.

D. As I have informed you at our previous meetings, Indian Embassy was fully authorized to undertake its functions in US immediately following issuance of agreed announcement. Of course we, too, have regulations governing visits by families to prisoners. However, my govt has authorized me to inform you that no restrictions are imposed on Indian Ambassador in carrying out his functions under agreed announcement.

E. Important fact, of course, in all this discussion of the details of implementation is that in our agreed announcement on September 10 we stated that all those who wanted to return were free to do so and that appropriate measures could be taken to enable them to do so expeditiously.

2. Wang replied that he had been telling me for long time his govt would be faithful in implementing agreed announcement and that third state would be able to carry out functions.

3. I continued with extemporaneous statement on renunciation of force. I acknowledged receipt of revised English version and stated we were continuing study of his draft agreed announcement.

4. I said renunciation of force was subject on which it was important there be full understanding between us. It was not an area in which problems could be resolved by unclear or cloudy language that may mean one thing to one side, another thing to the other side.

5. I said we both recognized that we faced practical situation in Taiwan area. My govt is determined insofar as it lies within its powers that there be no hostilities. If his govt has same determination, question of possibility of hostilities arising in area can be resolved.

6. I said in considering his draft agreed announcement, I would like to be able to inform my govt exactly to what degree it meets points raised in statement I made at time of raising this subject. In that statement I had said to use force to achieve national objectives does not accord with accepted standards of conduct under international law. I had cited instances and examples in which this principle was enunciated. I had said US has in past and is willing again to enunciate this principle.

7. I said question I would like to be able to answer to my govt is whether or not draft is intended incorporate this principle.

8. I said I had also noted in draft announcement inclusion of agreement on meeting of Foreign Ministers of our two countries. This appeared to link question of declaration that force not be used to settle disputes with a particular form of negotiations. These two things are quite different from one another. If principle non-recourse to force is sound, it is sound for its own sake and not proper to link it with any particular form of negotiation. Neither UN Charter, portions of which he had quoted, nor any other principle I know of, states problems must be negotiated between Foreign Ministers of countries.

9. I said UN Charter and other statements this subject refer to peaceful settlement disputes. Many ways of peacefully settling disputes and many channels through which negotiations between govts can be carried on for purpose peacefully settling disputes. As we both knew, normal channel is between Ambassadors or between Ambassador and Foreign Office.

10. I said my govt had suggested the present talks for purpose peacefully discussing and settling disputes. I did not see how question of another level of talks arose until we had completed the talks here.

11. I said the important point was that whatever words were used or whatever form we adopted, it be perfectly clear that neither of us would use force in Taiwan area.

12. I said that in my original statement I had said we should both of us clearly renounce force to make policies of either of us prevail over those of other. We considered that this applied particularly to Taiwan area.

13. I said this involved no third parties, nor did it involve justice or injustice of conflicting claims.

14. I said I would appreciate his observations on whether his announcement intended to cover points I had raised in my original statement, which was proposal his side declare it would not resort to force in Taiwan area except defensively. As I had said at time, US prepared make corresponding declaration.

15. I concluded that whatever answer he might give me would be of great help in considering his proposal.

16. Wang replied that he shared my view that purpose of talks is to settle disputes between two countries peacefully, and in particular disputes in Taiwan area.

17. Wang continued with prepared statement on this subject, which he elaborated extemporaneously. He said that I had said at the previous meeting that Taiwan had been restored to China from Japan. That is exactly what former President Truman said in statement of January 5, 1950. No matter what was then Chinese Govt, no one can deny Taiwan is Chinese territory. As this is case, liberation of Taiwan cannot but be admitted as domestic affair of China.

18. Wang said US cannot cover up US armed encroachment Taiwan and interference Chinese People’s liberation Taiwan and coastal islands by concluding treaty with Chiang Kai-shek clique. Nevertheless I had gone so far as to try to mix up civil conflict in China with international matters by invoking treaty. His side could never accept this. Wang said I had stated I had no intent debate conflicting policies Taiwan in order to avoid long futile controversy. However, if we to discuss how non-recourse to force may be applied to Sino-US dispute in area, we cannot evade fact US resorting to threat and use of force. That fact gave rise to Sino-US dispute in area, which is pressing for solution.

20. Wang said he had repeatedly pointed out that in discussing principle of non-recourse to force, distinction must be made between internal conflict and international dispute. Internal conflict no business of present talks. Anouncement should not have anything to do with internal matters of any country.

21. Wang said Chinese people always strive for peaceful solutions even in realm of internal matters. But it was Chiang Kai-shek who started large scale internal conflict in 1946, as even State Dept White Paper admitted. Chinese people compelled resort to war to overthrow Chiang rule and establish PRC.

22. Wang said today remnant elements Chiang clique still haunt Taiwan, waging disruptive war against mainland China. Nevertheless, Chinese people still willing, conditions permitting, strive liberation Taiwan by peaceful means. This internal matter, not subject present talks.

23. Wang said US Govt had indicated it does not intend speak for Chiang Kai-shek, nor can his side accept US to represent Chiang in talks. He cannot agree to a public announcement which would touch on a Chinese internal affair.

24. Wang said I had spoken of situations of division in other parts of the world. As far as China concerned, this metaphor out of place and cannot justify US encroachment on Taiwan. Any attempt split China into two Chinas unacceptable to Chinese people.

25. Wang said his draft announcement on basis UN Charter called for peaceful settlement of disputes without resorting to threat or use of force. This met spirit of my statement concerning settling disputes between our two countries peacefully.

26. Wang said, in order realize this desire, appropriate both sides hold conference of Foreign Ministers to settle question of and eliminate tension in Taiwan area.

27. Wang concluded if US genuinely seeking peaceful settlement, there no reason we cannot agree make such announcement. No justification for stalling in issuing such announcement.

28. I replied that I did not see how his remarks advanced the situation very much. Was I to take it as his position that negotiations between our two countries could be carried on only at the Foreign Ministers’ level?

29. Wang replied that his side regarded dispute in Taiwan area as gravest existing dispute between China and US, affecting not only relations between China and US but also security and peace in Far East. Therefore it his view that it would be more practical refer such grave problem to conference of Foreign Ministers of our two countries.

30. Wang said if I considered myself fully authorized and able assume responsibility for settling question of withdrawal US armed forces from Taiwan area, he would join me in discussing this question here.

31. I replied that I understood then that negotiations could be carried on at level other than Foreign Minister.

32. Wang said that if I had power settle question to which he had referred, he would join me in discussing the problem. He was not trying to evade discussion of the question.

33. I said that next question I wished to raise was one I had raised before. We have different views with respect nature of dispute Taiwan area. Did he agree that first and most important task is make sure different views do not lead us to war? We recognized there is practical situation in area. Overwhelmingly important question of principle was that practical situation should not lead us to war.

34. I said he had referred to situation as internal matter and had said “conditions permitting” his side would strive for peaceful settlement. As I had pointed out at last meeting, that is very different from saying force will not be resorted to in area except defensively.

35. I said obligation to seek peaceful settlement and not to resort to force did not revolve about the question of internal matter or international matter. Question is whether use of force would endanger international peace and security.

36. I said he had quoted portions of UN Charter. I would like to quote another portion that has pertinence to the situation. I read paragraph 1, article 33, chapter VI, of Charter.

37. I said test is not whether question is internal or external, but whether it affects international peace and security. Same point made in article 1 of Charter, which refers to “situations which might lead to breach of peace”.

38. I said my purpose is not to get into legalistic argument over interpretation of Charter. I simply mean to point out that Charter is one of places where principle was enunciated that it is contrary accepted standards of international relations use force in situations likely to endanger international peace and security.

39. I said I was not asking him accept proposition that problem in Taiwan area is not internal. To say force will not be resorted to in Taiwan area does not prejudice his position in regard to nature of dispute. I was not suggesting he say anything that would prejudice his position. I was simply asking whether it is intent of his draft to make clear that force will not be resorted to except defensively.

40. I said it was of extreme importance that we be absolutely clear between ourselves on this. It would be most unfortunate and discussions here would be counterproductive if we produced words that meant one thing to him and another thing to us.

41. I said that I was honestly not clear what his position was.

42. Wang replied that his side “used to maintain” in discussions between us that US should withdraw its armed forces to express its sincerity. I had repeatedly urged that a statement be issued to effect that all disputes should be settled peacefully without resorting to force. Draft was intended to satisfy this request by our side.

43. Wang said any draft must represent common point of view between our two countries. His draft contained three points suitable to both of us:

A. First, it contained article from UN Charter on which he was sure we could have no difference of opinion. Nearly everyone has learned stipulations of UN Charter by heart.

B. Second, draft provided for peaceful settlement of disputes without resorting to force. He was sure we could agree on this point. Draft provided that both China and US will not resort to force.

C. Third, draft suggests conference at higher level should be held to settle question of tension Taiwan area. Even some responsible personages in US had expressed this desire.

44. Wang said it seemed therefore his draft proposal was reasonable and able to facilitate our talks. The position of his side was quite clear, and if I had intent to understand it, I would be able to do so.

45. Wang said his side was in full agreement with provision UN Charter I had quoted. Articles quoted provide for peaceful settlement international disputes without resorting to war. That is what his side is striving for. However in these articles and in other portions of UN Charter there are no provisions permitting one country to interfere in internal affairs of another.

46. Wang said that is why he had stated we must not mix up two distinct problems. Distinction must be made between internal and international issues. First point we must be clear on is that internal conflict is not mixed up with international.

47. Wang said second point is question of interference in internal affairs of other countries. Fact that US has used armed force against Taiwan has brought us together in present talks. We should discuss question of interference in Chinese internal affairs on part of US. If American armed force is withdrawn from Taiwan and US avoids interference in internal affairs of China, a new page in relations between China and US would emerge.

48. Wang said if US could meet two points mentioned above, question how Chinese people will deal with Chiang clique is matter of China’s internal affairs. Chinese people have consistently expressed willingness deal with Chiang by peaceful means. That is to say, China also willing settle internal issues by peaceful means.

49. Wang said in same manner his side willing settle disputes between US and China. He was sure he had made his position quite clear.

50. Wang said any sovereign state must and should adopt such position. In past US always stated its desire maintain territorial integrity China. US even made pledge it would not interfere China’s internal affairs. These two statements in US history are quite just and welcomed by Chinese people. Grave test facing US is implementing now two solemn pledges made in past.

51. Wang said US has stated history of China full of humiliations, foreign occupation, special privileges on part of foreigners, and encroachment on territory. Foreign countries encroached on and occupied territory including Taiwan and Manchuria and explained as foreign encroachments Chinese sovereignty contrary to UN Charter.

52. Wang said such statement on part of US was in accord with history of China. However, breaches of Chinese sovereignty and integrity of Chinese territory have now become matters of Chinese history and these could only be inflicted on a weak government. Humiliation could only be inflicted upon weak state such as old China of past. Things have changed entirely. Today great, strong China will never allow that history to repeat itself.

53. Wang said his present requirement is a minimum one. What he sought was to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country. Such was his position. He hoped I would understand his position.

54. I replied that it was getting late and that I had two other matters I wished to take up. The discussion so far had been helpful. I would like to ask one question, not in an argumentative spirit but to see whether we were getting closer together. Did the Ambassador agree with me that whatever our differences of interpretation and views in regard to Taiwan situation may be, present factual situation is such that resort by either side to force in area would endanger international peace?

55. Wang replied that he agreed so long as China’s internal affairs were not involved, so long as disputes between China and US did not involve China’s internal affairs. In same spirit his Premier had stated Chinese people and American people were friendly, Chinese people do not want to fight American people, provided both respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of other side. His side was willing to reach a reconciliation with US. He hoped US would also show its reconciliation by actual deeds.

56. Wang said I had stated that no third parties were involved.

57. I replied that he had not quite grasped my question. My question was whether or not the Ambassador agreed that factual situation Taiwan area was such that initiation of hostilities by either side would endanger international peace.

58. Wang replied that of course international peace was being endangered. It was not question of resort to force by both sides. In fact US already using force in area.

59. Wang said he was sure all his statements today were intended answer my questions. If I would study his remarks I would get my answers.

60. I replied that I could not agree that US using force in area but that I was trying to avoid controversy this point. I had presented views of my government at preceding meeting and would not take time to repeat. I would study what he had said and would discuss this subject further at subsequent meeting.

61. I then presented prepared statement on missing military personnel as follows:

A. At last meeting when I raised question of missing military personnel, you used phrase “non-existent”. I do not know whether you interpret this to mean missing men are now non-existent or were non-existent.

B. I mentioned Mr. Craig at our last meeting. Evidence indicates he was alive and in your hands at one time. I want to assure you our purpose is not to embarrass or make charges but simply to obtain information for families of these men. I would like to mention another name in list I discussed last week. Name is Corporal Russel F. Morris of US Army. Corporal Morris’ name was listed as prisoner of war in Shanghai News of June 30, 1951. August 1951 issue of China Monthly Review also listed his name.

C. In listing his name along with others, China Monthly Review states list compiled on basis New China News Agency list of POW’s who have broadcast statements over Peking Radio or who have asked Chinese correspondents in Korea to publish their names so that their families may learn that they are prisoners.

D. In regard to your statement last week, I want to ask whether this means that responsible correspondents of your side in Korea would take names of missing Americans and state that they are POW’s in order to mislead their families? Would your authorities permit such false information to be circulated by New China News Agency? It is difficult for me to believe that this is case. If it is not case, this man was alive as prisoner of war of your side. He was not returned, no report of his death has ever been received, his body has not been returned. I am simply asking that your authorities investigate case and tell us what happened to him. There must be some record of what happened to Corporal Morris after August 1951. There surely can be no objection to informing what that record is so that his family can be informed. In spite of our efforts, we simply have not been able to find out. This is all I am asking. Just as in case of Corporal Morris, I do not see why this cannot be done along with other names.

E. This matter is one of deep concern to families of missing men, to all Americans, and to my government. It is clearly matter at issue between our two governments.

62. Wang replied that he had made his position clear at last meeting and could not accept discussion this matter. As all cases enumerated happened in 1951, they happened during Korean War. There is a Military Armistice Commission which specially deals with prisoners and missing personnel. American side has some men missing and not accounted for. On part of Chinese and Korean side in same manner there are missing men not accounted for. If he were to ask for information concerning these men, these requests could only be referred to armistic commission in Korea. These matters within scope of Korean War.

63. Wang said as to Americans in China, he had in spirit conciliation given me information on all Americans in China. He believed I could have no doubt concerning his good will this regard. Facts in past have borne this out.

64. Wang said he could not accept discussion of matter of missing personnel in Korean War. Even Secretary of State Dulles stated in August 18 press conference that list of missing personnel must not cause hope any these men still alive.

65. I replied that was correct. I had not alleged these men were alive. I was merely asking that if they have died we be told that.

66. Wang replied he had already informed us of what he knew. What he did not know he could not tell us. If I agreed with Secretary Dulles concerning fate these men and that list must not cause hope that they are alive, he did not see why I raised question non-existent men.

67. Wang said he sympathized with families these men. They must blame the criminal war. The suffering and losses of Chinese and Korean people were even more severe.

68. I replied that his remarks concerning Korean War were entirely uncalled for but that I did not intend to debate matter.

69. I asked whether his linking of question of our personnel with question of his side’s personnel meant that his authorities did have information that they would under certain circumstances be willing to furnish.

70. Wang replied that he would not have made remarks about Korean War had this issue not been put forward. He had no intent discuss question. He had no information to give concerning men enumerated.

71. I replied that he did not even know names of men. All I was asking that he take names and ask for information. Immaterial whether answer supplied here or in MAC. All I asked was that he take names, ask his authorities to look into matter. If information is that men are not living we should be told.

72. Wang replied that since this question had been raised in Korea, it should be put through the same channel. He did not think this was proper place to discuss. He had no intent engage in debate with me.

73. I asked him whether his government was willing instruct its representative in MAC to discuss question there. It was precisely because his side had refused to discuss matter and accept names there that it had become necessary raise matter here.

74. Wang replied this was not suitable place raise question.

75. I said I would not pursue the matter further this morning; that I wished to raise another matter. I then presented prepared statement on subject of trade, as follows:

A. Mr. Ambassador, as I have indicated to you, we are continuing our study of your draft statement on renunciation of force. I believe our discussion of this subject this morning has been useful.

B. I full well recognize, and I am sure you do, that the formulation of any declaration on this subject agreeable to both of our governments is going to be a matter of delicacy that will require some thought and time.

C. At our last meeting you suggested that, following any agreement we may be able to reach on a renunciation of force statement, we should undertake discussion of what you term trade embargo.

D. I am glad that you have thus recognized the inherent relationship between the two subjects and that my response to the questions which you may raise under your item of trade embargo must greatly depend upon the degree of agreement which we are able to reach with respect to renunciation of force.

E. The two subjects are fundamentally related as the measures which the United States and other like-minded countries have taken with respect to trade with your country are in response to considerations of national security and must be considered in that light.

F. However, while the question of renunciation of force is being considered, I would, in the interest of expediting our discussions, be glad to hear whatever views you desire to put forward with respect to trade.

G. I do this with regard to your subject even though you have thus far refused seriously to discuss or even consider with me the question of missing military personnel which is a subject of deep interest to my government and people and which clearly is a matter at issue between us. I also say to you that I would not consider it within the spirit of these talks to refuse to accept any material which you may desire to give me with respect to your subject.

H. In discussing the matter of trade at our meeting of September 14 you referred to what you termed “economic blockade and embargo imposed by U.S.” I am not clear as to what you have in mind in this regard. I know of no blockade and I know of nothing imposed by the U.S. on anyone else.

I. I do know of various sovereign measures taken by my government with respect to economic intercourse between my country and your country. I also know of common measures taken by several other countries in consultation with each other as well as with the United States concerning the export to your country of strategic materials. I also know of the resolution of May 18, 1951 by the General Assembly of the United Nations recommending an embargo on the shipment to your country of arms, ammunition, implements of war and other strategic materials.

J. Therefore, when you present the views of your government, I hope that you will clarify exactly what aspects of this matter you have in mind.

76. Wang replied that at the last meeting he had stated that after discussion of question of agreed announcement, we should go on to question of embargo. He had not said there was any connection between these questions.

77. Wang said he had never intended create impression that discussion of certain subject is precondition for discussion another. Question of embargo is precisely one of issues between US and China. It is exactly one of items which should be discussed. Discussion and solution of these issues aimed at improving relations between two countries.

78. Wang said he regarded embargo unreasonable by principle. Such policy runs against peaceful trade relations between nations. Therefore it is his view that to improve relations policy of embargo must be abolished. Abolition of embargo policy is in accord with desires and wishes all people including US people.

79. Wang said he reserved further discussion at next meeting. He asked whether he could be given a copy of my statement since they had not taken complete notes.

80. We agreed that a copy would be sent this afternoon.

81. Wang asked whether it would be convenient that the next meeting be advanced to Tuesday, November 8.

82. I explained that I had made plans which it would be somewhat difficult for me to change so as to be able to meet with him on November 8, but said I would be agreeable to meeting on Friday, November 11.

83. Wang indicated he would prefer to meet on the regular schedule on Thursday, November 10. We confirmed that the usual press statement would be made. Meeting ended at 12:50.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–355. Confidential; Priority; Limited Distribution.