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

384. Telegram 1215 from Geneva¹

Geneva, November 23, 1955, midnight

1215. From Johnson.

1. I opened 27th meeting today with prepared statement on implementation as follows:

A. Since our last meeting my government has received news that three of Americans held by your government are to be released; in fact, two of them have already left. Gratifying as this news is, fourteen Americans still remain in prison in your country.

B. Not only have these fourteen Americans not yet been permitted to exercise their right to return, but British Charge d’Affaires has not been able to carry out his functions under agreed announcement with respect to them. Thirteen of remaining fourteen have not yet been able to communicate with British Charge. Since your government bears responsibility for providing facilities for prisoners’ communication with British Charge, my government can only conclude that they are being prevented from communicating with him. It is obvious that any person confined to prison would seek to take full advantage of Charge’s efforts to remove impediments to freedom, if given opportunity.

C. To best of my knowledge the office of British Charge has been able to visit only one of Americans. My government considers that requirement that Charge interview Americans only in accordance with rules for relatives is arbitrary and unreasonable, since Charge is an official carrying out his duties and not relative. Requirements for visits would appear to be attempt to defeat purpose of agreed announcement. There are no restrictions whatsoever on freedom of Chinese in US to communicate with Indian Embassy or on freedom of Indian Embassy to interview Chinese who appeal to it in accordance with agreed announcement.

D. My government cannot accept contention of your Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs in his interview with UK Charge on November 14 that question of encountering obstructions in leaving country does not arise in cases of imprisoned Americans. Imprisonment is of itself incontrovertible evidence of obstructions to departure. Since more than two months have passed since your government pledged that Americans would be expeditiously permitted return, it apparent they are encountering obstructions in leaving.

E. Tomorrow is my country’s holiday of Thanksgiving; it is tragic that on this day, two and a half months after we issued our agreed announcement fourteen Americans covered by that announcement remain in prison, separated from their families. I can only urge that your government, in interests of improving relations between our governments and furthering prospects for success in these talks, complete implementation of its commitments without further delay.

2. I continued with prepared statement on renunciatuon of force as follows:

A. I have since our last meeting carefully reviewed our discussion thus far with respect renunciation of force. I have particularly reviewed statements which you have made in this regard including your statement at our last meeting.

B. In doing this I have been seeking to find basis upon which it would be possible make progress in our search for agreement on text for public statement. I am encouraged by progress we have thus far made with respect to principles, but our difficulties now seem revolve in large part around words with which express those principles. I have tried, and will continue try, make my best constructive efforts toward this end and I hope you will also do so. I am satisfied that, if we both do this, our agreement in principle is wide enough permit us reach agreement on words.

C. Mr. Ambassador, I am sorry have to say that I do not feel that your statement at our last meeting constituted such constructive effort. As I said at time, it was confined to generalizations, most of which were of very controversial character and of little pertinence our immediate task. I have tried at previous meetings explain why I felt your draft of October 27 did not best meet situation. I also made effort in my draft of November 10 meet both points of view. In spite of these efforts you simply rejected my draft and demanded that I accept your draft. It is hard for me to reconcile this with genuine desire make progress.

D. In your statement at our last meeting you entirely ignored statement made in my November 10 draft clearly setting forth that announcement was without prejudice to pursuit by each side of its policies by peaceful means. You entirely ignored clear wording of draft and alleged that it constituted requirement on your government renounce its views and policies. I want make it absolutely clear that draft constitutes no such requirement with respect to views and peaceful policies of your government. Draft provides that your government will simply state it will not initiate use of armed force to implement those policies. US Government at same time will renew its often repeated statements in this regard. I cannot see how any reasonable person can possibly misinterpret this proposal on part of my government and say that it calls into question desire of my government seek just and peaceful settlements of disputes between us, including those in Taiwan area and therefore I do not believe arguments which you gave as alleged basis for rejecting my November 10 draft have a basis in fact.

E. At our last meeting you also again spoke of meeting of our Foreign Ministers, as if that was only means of peacefully settling disputes. You appear continue confuse basic difference between fundamental principle of unconditionally agreeing peacefully settle disputes and procedural question of what form of negotiation shall be used implement that principle. My government proposed these talks as normal and natural way of discussing and settling our differences. We are both Ambassadors fully authorized speak for our respective governments to extent that our governments are willing enable us do so. That is why my government proposed that these talks be at Ambassadorial level. If your government is as desirous of peaceful settlement of disputes betwen us as is my government, it will enable you to make full and honest efforts negotiate and discuss our differences here before raising question of terminating these talks and substituting another method of negotiation. When we have succeeded in resolving questions which we are called upon deal with here, then our governments will naturally be in better position consider what further steps might be taken.

F. At our last meeting you also particularly spoke of inclusion in my draft of phrase concerning right of individual and collective self-defense. I am very surprised at your apparent rejection of inclusion of such phrase as I would have thought that you would have considered it very important. Your interpretation of phrase was very distorted and, read in context of my draft declaration as whole, I do not consider that your interpretation is correct. What phrase simply says is, while we will not initiate hostilities, each of us wish to make clear that, if there is an attack in Taiwan area or elsewhere, we will defend ourselves individually or in concert with others. You have spoken much of principles of United Nations Charter. This principle of right of self-defense is certainly age old, natural principle which is again restated in United Nations Charter, and it is difficult for me see on what basis there can be objection thereto.

G. We have both agreed that our differences of view and disputes between us should not lead to war, and that it is intent of both of us that we will not permit this happen. Thus draft I have proposed simply says this in as straightforward and simple language as I am able contrive.

H. We both agree that region in which our differing policies and views confront each other most seriously is in area of Taiwan. This is also obvious to world. Therefore, in making such general statement it is important to make clear to world that neither of us has any hidden reservations or qualifications concerning applicability of that general principle to area of Taiwan. My draft thus proposes that we specifically and clearly state this as fact.

I. We also are agreed that in whatever we say neither of us wants sacrifice or prejudice our position with respect to matters at issue between ourselves or others, that is, we do not desire to say something that would prevent us from maintaining our views and pursuing our policies by means other than use of military force. We want to be free pursue our policies by peaceful means. My draft also says this in just as clear and simple terms as I can.

J. We also agreed on principle that peaceful means should be used for just settlement of disputes between us. It was in accordance with this principle United States proposed these talks and it was hoped that reason your government accepted this proposal was that it also agrees with this principle. United States has done everything possible and will continue do all it can make these talks succeed. My government’s purpose in suggesting declaration renouncing use of force as a fundamental first principle was intended contribute this objective. And it will continue be our policy, based on principles of United Nations Charter, strive for just settlement of disputes by peaceful means.

K. I have taken this time carefully explain and amplify my draft of November 10, since, from your remarks at our last meeting, it appeared that your government apparently did not have a full understanding of it. I hope that these remarks will serve clarify any misunderstanding that may have existed and enable us make progress in agreeing upon text.

3. Wang replied first with comments my implementation statement. He said during course of talks 41 American civilians or law-offenders had returned to US. Number of Americans who left China since talks began far exceeded two-thirds of number in China at time talks started. This fact shows PRC has made greatest effort in solution problem of returning American civilians.

4. Wang said Americans still remaining being treated accordance agreed announcement and PRC legal procedures. His side could not accept remarks alleging obstructions in regard to Americans who committed offenses. Proof of this in fact I had mentioned that one American remaining in prison was able communicate with British Charge without factual basis.

5. Wang said he had in past spoken of principle under which American law offenders will be dealt with. He could not accept contention that imprisonment itself constitutes evidence of obstruction against return. These people not able return simply because they have breached Chinese law.

6. Wang said his side desirous improving relations our two countries through present talks, but such improvement must be without sacrifice sovereign rights either party. Cases American law offenders being dealt with in accordance agreed announcement; at same time handling must be in accordance Chinese legal procedures.

7. Wang then replied to my renunciation of force statement. He said his side fully shared desire I had spoken of that these talks succeed and lead to peaceful settlement disputes between us.

8. Wang said question presently under discussion is renunciation of force. The basic points in this discussion. First, it is essential we both have common understanding nature of conflict of policies between us. Second, we should strive settle question on basis of such common understanding.

9. Wang said we both agreed desirability making public statement on renunciation of force. Question now is what is to be said in such statement. His side has made careful study of US draft of November 10. At last meeting he had again set forth his views. In my statement this morning, I had again amplified and explained draft I had proposed. Consequently it is necessary prior side also renew clarification its point of view this regard.

10. Wang continued with a prepared statement. He said that he had put forth October 27 draft agreed announcement after having considered my renunciation of force proposal and my desire that both sides make a public statement. His draft embraced points of view acceptable to both sides. His side was not seeking to impose its views on our side.

11. Wang said his draft quoted articles of UN Charter pertaining to renunciation of force. I had said that as member of UN, US willing abide by Charter. If this case, how could it be construed, as I had tried to do at last meeting, that specific provisions UN Charter were being imposed upon US or that they were points which were unacceptable to US.

12. Wang said third paragraph his draft stated PRC and US agree settle disputes by peaceful means without threat or use force. This concrete application of UN Chapter in Sino-US relations. He could not see how US side could possibly raise objections.

13. Wang said obvious difference of principle existed between PRC draft and first paragraph US draft. Latter simply states differences two sides shall not lead to armed conflict but makes no provisions whatever settle disputes between two countries. Such wording in no way acceptable under circumstances in which US side has already used force Taiwan area. Since we both recognized grave differences especially in Taiwan area, PRC side obliged stipulate concrete provision for peaceably settling differences.

14. Wang said paragraph 4 PRC draft provided for Foreign Ministers’ conference. If US side sincerely desirous peaceful settlement disputes particularly in Taiwan area, he failed to see how I could object to that paragraph on any grounds.

15. Wang said PRC draft embraced points of view acceptable both sides, and was by no means intended impose views one side on other.

16. Wang said paragraph two of US draft, concerning renunciation of force to achieve national objectives, was not consistent with UN Charter, which provided force should not be used settle disputes or prejudice territorial integrity or political independence any state. No clause in UN Charter permitting interference internal affairs any state; on contrary, specific provisions barring this. Such terms as “national objectives” obvious attempt include Chinese internal matters.

17. Wang said Chinese people unshakably determined liberate all territory of country. By whatever means this accomplished, it cannot be distorted as violation of principles and purposes Charter. Our wording that force not be used to achieve national objectives goes beyond scope of Sino-American talks and is tantamount calling upon PRC side surrender exercise sovereign rights over Taiwan, which is what PRC side absolutely cannot accept.

18. Wang said fourth paragraph US draft purports that peaceful policies either side will not be prejudiced. However, policy pursued by US in Taiwan area is encroachment China’s territory and intervention Chinese internal affairs. UN Charter explicitly rules out prejudice to territorial integrity and political independence of any state by any means. PRC side would never agree that US side entitled pursue such policies by whatever means.

19. Wang said paragraph 6 US draft even claims right individual and collective right of self-defense in Taiwan area. UN Charter contains no clause entitling state encroaching on territory and interfering internal affairs of another state to individual and collective self-defense on territory of state aggressed against. US presentation this principle evidently designed permit US prolonged occupation Taiwan and entire China through Chiang Kai-shek.

20. Wang said when US encroaches Chinese territory it is alleged this done for sake of self-defense. When China undertakes action in exercise of sovereign rights it assailed by US as aggression. He could not believe that I could be unaware that such a false argument was trying to pass black for white.

21. Wang said US draft failed provide concrete arrangements settle differences two sides. I had stated present talks constituted such arrangements. However, he had repeatedly asked whether I was willing discuss question withdrawal US armed forces from Taiwan area and had never received any reply. This bears out fact present talks incapable settling question tense situation Taiwan area. Essential hold conference of Foreign Ministers to discuss and settle that question.

22. Wang said in light foregoing, it was not PRC side but US side that was attempting impose its views on the other. US draft demands PRC side surrender sovereign rights regarding Taiwan and recognize status quo of US encroachment of Taiwan and US interference Chinese internal affairs.

23. Wang said if his side agreed US draft and recognized status quo of US encroachment Taiwan and US interference Chinese internal affairs, then what would remain to be negotiated? Could it be that US side takes his government to be so naive and so easily led around by the nose?

24. Wang said I had indicated willingness discuss lifting embargo in exchange for agreement US draft. This out of the question. Policy of embargo is of itself unjustifiable. Embargo should be lifted. This is point he had made repeatedly.

25. Wang said US side had not succeeded in intimidating his side into submission by threat and use of force against Taiwan. Nor had US succeeded by these means in forcing PRC side into recognition status quo of US encroachment China’s territory. US will now fail in trying to condition embargo on recognition US encroachment on Taiwan.

26. Wang said nearly two months have elapsed since discussion on renunciation of force initiated, and nearly one month since introduction PRC draft. He had made clear position his side. Substance US draft is demand PRC side recognize status quo of encroachment by US on China’s territory. This absolutely unacceptable.

27. Wang said his draft embraces points of view acceptable both sides. If I still considered it essential we issue a statement, then PRC draft is only reasonable and feasible one. He hoped we would be able find agreement on basis PRC draft.

28. I replied Wang had misunderstood our position on question of embargo. In inviting his views, I had pointed out fact that measures he termed embargo taken by US in light of security interests. Measures US takes in regard to trade must take into consideration what we consider to be security interests. If US considers that danger of hostilities is lessened or removed, this naturally influences US point of view on trade. However, I certainly did not mean to imply that US willing trade lifting embargo for statement on renunciation of force.

29. I said Wang had properly pointed out that it is two months since renunciation of force discussion initiated. Although I am disappointed we not yet able reach full agreement, I am gratified at progress I thought we had made. Agreement in principle should be sufficient to reach agreement on words.

30. I said we did have clash of views on nature of dispute in Taiwan area, but I had taken position from beginning of talks important first task is not to reach agreement on nature dispute, but to agree we will not go to war about it. I had not tried impose our views on him in regard to dispute or nature of dispute. I had simply tried state in straightforward terms that clash of views should not cause war between us. I did not believe that Wang’s draft clearly set forth that intent. I did not want to repeat my previous statement, which in large part covered points he had made. I did think most important question we face is whether or not we each clearly and unambiguously state we do not intend let differences between us in Taiwan area lead us into hostilities.

31. I said last paragraph of Wang’s draft stated Foreign Ministers should discuss and settle question of eliminating tension Taiwan area. If he felt he could say that without sacrificing his position, I could not see why he could not also say he was determined differences in Taiwan area should not lead to war. It was important this be said clearly. In saying it, I did not see why or in what way it prejudiced his position.

32. I said that I had several times in the past pointed out that following issuance of agreed announcement on renunciation of force, if he wished to raise other matters within scope of talks, I would be prepared discuss them.

33. I said I was disturbed we have not gotten further ahead on agreeing on a text. Regarding my draft, as I understood his position, he had no objection in principle with respect first paragraph but felt that it did not go far enough in establishing concrete measures for settling disputes. Was that correct?

34. I said he had specifically objected to paragraph two of my draft. I wondered what words he might want changed.

35. I said he had made no mention of paragraph 3 of my draft. Could I take it therefore that he had no objection to that?

36. I said in regard to my fourth paragraph, could I take it he did not object but felt it was prejudiced by following paragraphs?

37. I said in regard to last two substantive paragraphs, could I take it that there should be a specific reference to Taiwan area, such as he had made in last paragraph his draft, so as to make clear Taiwan was covered?

38. I said I still was not clear why he objected to individual and collective self-defense. I thought we both would want to include statement on that. I would appreciate any comments Wang might want to make.

39. Wang replied I had said US had taken embargo measures out of security considerations. However in actual situation in relations between China and US, it is precisely China’s security that is threatened. Thus it can be seen measures of embargo are unreasonable and without basis. Disputes between us should be settled by peaceful means and for this end favorable atmosphere should be created. If embargo can be lifted at present time, it would contribute to such peaceful atmosphere.

40. Wang said we are in agreement on principle of advisability of making public statement. It should be possible agree on text. However, any discussion of text must be based on points of view acceptable to both of us. Draft proposed by his side October 27 has precisely met this spirit. He believed points enunciated that draft acceptable both sides.

41. Wang said, could it be that US objects to provisions UN Charter? Or that US opposes peaceful settlement international disputes? Again, could US object to making concrete arrangements for peaceful settlement existing disputes between our two countries?

42. Wang said as to US draft, he had already expressed his views on every paragraph. He had explained that he could not accept US draft as basis for discussion because it involved Chinese internal matters. Chinese people will not give up determination liberate Taiwan. That is within scope China’s internal affairs and is unshakable determination Chinese people. Chinese people convinced they will achieve this end.

43. Wang said PRC side not opposed principle of individual and collective self-defense. That is inherent right of every state. However, with respect to Taiwan area side which is on defensive is Chinese side. In Taiwan area China is entitled to this right exclusively, US can of course claim right of self-defense but only after it has withdrawn from Taiwan area. Under present circumstances in which US occupies Taiwan China cannot accept what I had termed self-defense by US in this area. This another reason why US draft unacceptable his side.

44. Wang said he again requested and hoped I would agree adopt his draft proposal as basis for discussion.

45. I said last paragraph his draft mentioned Taiwan area. I took it that he did not consider this to prejudice his position concerning nature of dispute there. I did not understand why if he willing say that, he not willing say Taiwan area situtaion should not be cause war between us. I did not see how that would prejudice his position any more than mention of Taiwan in PRC draft.

46. Wang said I should be reminded there are actually two points in question that must not be confused. First, in Taiwan area there exists matter of China’s internal affairs—that is, question of China’s exercise of sovereign rights in liberty of Taiwan. This falls within scope Chinese internal affairs.

47. Wang said on other hand there exists in Taiwan area conflict of policy between China and US. We are agreed position in issues between two countries should be settled in accordance purposes and principles UN Charter, we are agreed conflicting policies should not lead to war between us, in international matter between China and US.

48. Wang said clear distinction should be made between these two points. It is second point our talks should strive to settle rather than first. He would appreciate further comments on PRC draft.

49. I replied I was still trying get to heart of matter. If Wang can express willingness negotiate concerning Taiwan area, why could he not say that before negotiations threat of force in area be removed?

50. Wang replied that third paragraph his draft is best answer.

51. I said I had nothing further for today’s meeting. I had tried get into concrete discussion of wording and was sorry there had not been more progress.

52. Wang replied he believed he had answered all questions. He also hoped progress would be made. We had already used up a great deal of time. He would appreciate it if at next meeting I would put forth concrete opinion on PRC draft. Did I find this agreeable?

53. I replied way to make progress is to get down to specific wording. I set forth in great detail my views concerning Wang’s draft. I had produced draft that I thought came close to meeting two points of view. I had not demanded he accept my draft. I had carefully tried determine points to which there was objection in order bring agreement closer. I would continue strive for agreement as I hoped he would.

54. Wang said could he take it then that I was willing make further progress on basis PRC draft?

55. I said I had nothing more to say.

56. Wang said could he take it that at next meeting we would continue discuss his draft?

57. I said I was willing continue discussion in attempt reach agreement on a draft. Question was not my draft or his draft. Question is to try to reach agreement. I would approach problem in that spirit and hoped he would do the same.

58. Wang said was I willing continue strive for agreement on basis his draft. Question was yes or no.

59. I said question was not yes or no. I had answered question.

60. Wang said he was not clear what I had answered. He hoped we would be able make concrete progress on this question.

61. I said I certainly hoped so. I would try my best.

62. Wang said he hoped I would put forth concrete views on his draft.

63. I said I hoped he would put forth concrete views on my draft as well.

64. Wang said he had made it clear he could not accept my draft. If he did so, he would be surrendering sovereign rights. Draft not acceptable his side.

65. I said we should see at next meeting whether we could not make progress on common text. I was willing continue strive to do so and hoped he was likewise willing. This fencing “my draft—your draft” does not get us very far.

66. Wang said he hoped I would give further views on his draft at next meeting. He would welcome any progress in this direction.

67. I proposed we meet on our regular schedule next Thursday. Wang agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–2355. Confidential; Limited Distribution.