355. Letter 25 from McConaughy
to Johnson1
Letter No. 25
Washington, November 8,
1955
Dear Alex:
[Facsimile Page 1]
I enclose a copy of the latest communication from O’Neill dated November 4.
We have told the British Embassy that we would like O’Neill to visit Downey as soon as
possible unless he feels that it would constitute a precedent and
actually interfere with his plans to visit all prisoners. We have said
that of course O’Neill himself is
the best judge of this and that we would leave the decision to him.
Naturally, we want him to visit all prisoners whether they write him or
not if the Chinese will permit him. We have just heard from the British
Embassy that O’Neill requested an
appointment with Chang Han-fu for Monday November 7 in order to turn
over to him the letters to the 17 prisoners and to request permission to
visit prisoners. However, he was told that Chang could not see him on
that day. He has requested an appointment for November 8 and if that
should also be turned down, he proposes to act by letter instead.
[Typeset Page 493]
[Facsimile Page 2]
I hope to get off a longer letter to you by pouch tomorrow, but am
preparing this first so that it will not be delayed in case I am
prevented from doing the other letter.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
Communication from the British Embassy2
Washington,
November 5,
1955
[Facsimile Page 3]
Message from Mr. O’Neill dated November 4
AMERICANS IN CHINA
I am now preparing letters to the 17 prisoners. I propose enclosing
text of agreed announcement and to avoid danger impugning Chinese
good faith by saying that I understand that the Chinese have already
communicated the text to the prisoners, but I am attaching a copy
for their convenience. The letters will then draw attention to my
functions under the agreement and say that I am ready to help in any
way I can, and that I hope the prisoners will not hesitate to
communicate with me as I understand the Chinese authorities agree
they may. The letters will end by saying that the Chinese
authorities have agreed that members of my staff should visit the
prisoners and that I hope to arrange this soon.
2. With reference to paragraph 3 of my telegram of October 27, the
Chinese were not complaining of any restrictions placed on the
Indian Ambassador. I think that, before implementing a concession
which went rather beyond the letter of the agreement (in not
insisting on some initiative by the American prisoners before I
could contact them) [they will require a formal assurance of
reciprocity?]. If the Chinese raise this again I shall say that I
understand that no restrictions are imposed on the Indian Ambassador
in carrying out his functions under the agreement. But they may yet
require a more specific assurance before they deliver the letter or
authorise visits. The Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs on October
26 was particularly insistent that the arrangements he proposed were
subject to reciprocity.
3. My chief reason for suggesting that I should not arrange immediate
visit to Downey was that which the State Department give in asking
me to do so: namely that no distinction should be made between any
of the detained Americans. Moreover, if I now ask to visit Downey
[Typeset Page 494]
only
this might give the Chinese the impression that I shall only ask to
visit the prisoners who have succeeded in communicating with me. I
am anxious not to prejudice the wider concession now made by the
Chinese that my staff may visit all the prisoners, whether or not
they write to me first. No other prisoners have so far written. If
the State Department agree I suggest that I should ask the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs at once to arrange visits by members of my staff
to Downey and any other United States prisoners at present in
Peking. This would meet my point.
[Facsimile Page 4]
4. The letters will probably not be ready for delivery till Monday
November 7. It would be convenient if the State Department could
authorise by then simultaneous requests for visits as proposed
above.
