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

477. Telegram 1455 from Geneva¹

Geneva, February 4, 1956, 8 p.m.

1455. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 35th meeting today by reading prepared statement on renunciation force saying we now holding 16th meeting devoted discussion on making statement renouncing use force in relations China US. This subject first submitted by US side. After 16 sessions views both sides been set out clearly. Responsibility for failure reach agreement up to this time obviously not that of PRC side.

2. Wang said in line their consistent stand for peaceful solution international disputes their side proposed that China and US should jointly announce their intention settle their disputes peacefully. As US was already using force in regard Taiwan, there had to be some way in which this desire could be realized, hence their side proposed Foreign Ministers meeting.

3. Wang said, in order promote peaceful settlement disputes between two countries their side has refrained from advancing any prerequisites for renunciation force. However, US side has put forward and persists in requiring their side recognize US right self-defense on China’s territory Taiwan. Obviously this represents attempt block way to peaceful settlement.

4. Wang said at last meeting I had claimed that action by US in forcibly seizing Taiwan June 1950 taken to prevent spread of Korean hostilities. Such actions can in no sense be taken as intended prevent aggression. Facts have proven to contrary. After US launched aggression against Korea, at same time it extended its aggression and attempted spread its aggression to China’s northeast section.

5. Wang said now Korean War long ceased, yet US stepping up aggressive military activities in Taiwan area. This serves confirm point that US attempting use pretext of Korean War to whitewash its acts of war in seizure of Taiwan. However this simply vain attempt.

6. Wang said I had also claimed that tension in Taiwan area not created by American acts of aggression; that instead it created by China’s desire exercise sovereign rights over Taiwan. This again is turning everything upside down.

7. Wang said exercise by state of sovereign right over own territory could in no way cause tension. Had it not been for outright intervention US, Taiwan would be liberated long ago, and there would have been no tension in Taiwan area whatsoever. No amount of sophistry could deny fact that American seizure Taiwan by force and intervention in Taiwan by threat of force caused tension in Taiwan area.

8. Wang said I had next claimed that US in Taiwan purely for self-defense and that presence American forces on Taiwan in accordance with collective defense arrangements with Chiang Kai-shek clique. Fact is Taiwan is China’s territory and US had no right at all to traverse Pacific all way to Taiwan and put up defenses on that territory.

9. Wang said Chiang Kai-shek rule over Chinese people long been overthrown by Chinese people. Chiang could not represent anyone. Any treaties signed by his clique null void and could not legalize American aggression.

10. Wang said however my assertion that US on Taiwan purely in self-defense and that presence in accordance with self-defense arrangements fully proves my draft proposal for renunciation force amounts to requiring PRC side recognize occupation of Taiwan as well as recognize treaty between US-Chiang Kai-shek clique so as to legalize American occupation.

11. Wang said I had repeatedly stated US side does not demand PRC accept its views. In fact it not only demands they accept US position but also demands PRC recognize US actions of aggression as legal. He wanted say again that this could by no means be accepted.

12. Wang said it American occupation Taiwan which created tension Taiwan area. Their side proposes that conference Foreign Ministers be held by two countries, whereas US proposes that US must be given prior recognition status quo Taiwan so as to legalize occupation. As to just which side has sincerity towards settlement our problems, it plain to everybody.

13. Wang said if US side desirous peaceful settlement it must therefore withdraw its unreasonable demands. If US side should continue persist in its unreasonable demands, Wang saw no point in continuing these dragged out talks.

14. In partly extemporaneous partly prepared reply I said he had given his views on how he saw situation in which we find ourselves and had renewed charges against my government and discussed matters which I couldn’t see would help us advance in reaching agreement on problem directly in front of us. I, too, was seriously concerned with situation with which we confronted in our talks which could and still can have such favorable potentialities not only for our two peoples but for world. I would like to discuss that situation with him with utmost candor. I did not want to make charges or engage in fruitless debate but would like him understand how situation appeared to me at present moment.

15. I said I came here on August 1 last year with hope that his government fully shared spirit which led my government propose these talks and with hope real progress could be achieved by exercise of good will and understanding of each others point view, and would continue carry this out to best my ability.

16. I said it was not through accident, or lightly, that in its specific proposal for these talks my government placed matter of return civilians first, and had hoped that acceptance of that by his government proved that it also appreciated great importance of promptly resolving that matter. At very outset our conversations I carefully tried explain to him not only official attitude my government with regard this matter but also exactly how American people felt about it and relationship it had to atmosphere in which we might seek resolution of other matters facing us.

17. I said action his government had taken July 31 in freeing 11 American airmen led me to hope that his government also fully appreciated importance this matter and was desirous of promptly and completely resolving it. In order show its goodwill with regard matter and in hope it would facilitate prompt resolution of problem of Americans in his country, my government unilaterally rescinded all measures under which some few Chinese had been prevented from returning his country. I had informed him of this at very outset our talks.

18. I said no attempt was made to hold these people to extract political or other concessions from them nor was action in any way conditioned on taking of action by his government with respect Americans in his country. As I had pointed out to him at time, taking of similar action by his government with respect Americans in his country could have promptly and quickly settled whole problem of return of civilians.

19. I said, however, he stated that his government not willing take simple steps necessary to match action taken by my government which would have disposed of problem, but insisted on third power arrangement. Although it clear that only action by his government could remove impediments to departure of Americans from his country, in order meet his point of view I agreed with such third power arrangement. I even accepted his position there be no specific time limit set within which action to permit all Americans return would be completed, and agreed to his suggestion that simply term “expeditously” be used in this regard. Thus agreement was finally reached on our announcement September 10 last year, first agreement between us.

20. I said as I pointed out to him at time, people of my country would interpret agreement to mean just what it said and would expect expeditious return from his country of all Americans who desired return. Agreement was received with much satisfaction my country and there was general hope that it portended opening of new phase in peaceful resolution of other questions between us. Additional announcement of release 10 Americans on day of agreement greatly encouraged belief that remaining 19 Americans would in fact quickly be released in accordance pledge made by his govt in announcement. Thereby this problem and irritant in our relations would quickly be removed.

21. I said, thus, if his govt genuinely desired establish conditions for improvement our relations and atmosphere which would permit fruitful discussion questions it desired raise, it had it entirely in its power and ability do so by simply carrying out promptly and in good faith clear commitment into which it had freely entered.

22. I said, however, his govt appeared deliberately to be dissipating these possibilities. Instead of carrying out its commitment in prompt and straightforward manner that would command respect and confidence, it brings forward all kinds excuses and involved rationalizations for not doing what it full well knows it said it would do. Longer it delays in carrying out its pledged word, more inevitable is conclusion by American people, as well as people of world, that purpose is to continue hold these unfortunate human beings as political hostages. I was reluctant to come to conclusion his govt adopting such abhorrent policy but from statements made by his govt and continued failure release these people it increasingly difficult for me avoid doing so.

23. I said I also concerned with increasingly obdurate attitude his govt adopting concerning our simple and straightforward proposal Oct 8 and its persistent attempts misrepresent that proposal. I had at one time thought we were in general agreement as to principle that without prejudice to our respective views and peaceful pursuit our policies we would make it clear we would not threaten or initiate war in attempt solve those differences.

24. I said once this had been done, we could in such atmosphere calmly and rationally discuss our differences with real hope that mutually satisfactory solutions could be found. If we were to be successful in such high purpose it essential we refrain from attempting anticipate settlement those disputes or prejudice position of either side with respect our differences. It seemed to me this proposition so self-evident there could be no objection to it and until recently I had assumed it also accepted by his govt, and our only remaining difficulties were those of words by which it would be expressed.

25. I said in my opening statement Oct 8 I very specifically set forth it was not suggested that either of us should renounce any policy objectives which we felt we were legitimately entitled achieve, but only renounce force in implementing those policies. This was also explicitly set forth in draft I presented Nov 10. I felt satisfied amendments suggested to his draft Dec 1 also carried out same intent. I still feel that is case. I said I thought he and his govt had mistakenly interpreted amendments which suggested there was no intent whatever to prejudice his views regarding peaceful pursuit his policies. I did not think there was any better way accomplishing common purpose than in amendments I presented. I still haven’t thought of any better way but again repeat my willingness hear any suggestions he had.

26. I said, however, it has become increasingly clear intent of his govt, apparently from beginning our discussion this matter, was vastly and fundamentally different. It has become clear that purpose his govt is utterly to reverse whole spirit and intent of any such declaration into document which on one hand would explicitly or implicitly constitute unilateral renunciation by my govt its solemn international undertakings as well as its views and policies. On the other hand the intent appears to be to reserve to his govt. right to initiate war to oppose views of my govt. I said I do not believe I was unfairly misrepresenting situation if I stated it in simple terms as an attempt to get my govt to say it recognizes his govts right to start war in Taiwan area if it desires to do so, and if it does so my govt renounces its right to defend itself or its allies. This is not declaration of renunciation force, but rather declaration intent of one side use force. Proposition is so absurd, I do not see how some could seriously attempt support it, and if one is to speak of unreasonable demands this is certainly most unreasonable of all.

27. I said I did not question his right to hold his views with regard our dispute Taiwan area, or elsewhere for that matter, no matter how opposed to them I might be. Nor did I dispute right his govt peacefully oppose views my govt. All I have asked, and continue to ask, is that he accord same respect my views, and two of us assure world of determination our govts that mutual opposition our policies will not lead to war. I do not see how any proposition could be more simple or universally accepted as just, reasonable and in accord with accepted standards international conduct. Can we not again approach this matter from this standpoint?

28. Wang said I had just given a general outline and review of our talks from the start last August up to present. He would like point out he found himself unable accept some of my standpoints in relation past events and in relation problems encountered in our talks.

29. Wang said in particular they could not accept unfounded and unreasonable charges against his govt regarding its implementation of agreed announcement.

30. Wang said he would set aside for time being until later fuller discussion of return of civilians and other such matters referring to item one of agenda.

31. Wang said, in first place he would make some comments on my statements concerning our discussion second agenda item, that is, on matter of issuing statement renouncing use force. There are two points in approach this problem which must be set clear between two sides.

32. Wang said first point is in connection objective in making such declaration between us. Second point is what exactly is nature of difference between our two sides. If we could set these two essential points in proper light, then remaining matters in connection with them could be easily settled.

33. Wang said, now concerning first point: it been their consistent view and stand that any such declaration or statement should be aimed at relaxing existing tension between two sides in Taiwan area, and that any such statement or declaration must provide effective and peaceful measures by which disputes between China and US could be concretely settled.

34. Wang said, hence it been their constant effort and attempt to incorporate in such declaration or statement, as much as they could, those points and views which acceptable by either side, while setting to one side matters on which we do not agree, so as to promote chance of peaceful settlement disputes between two of us. They have tried accomplish this purpose of peaceful settlement without involving any compulsion on other side.

35. Wang said, however US in its various proposals, including amendment it last put forward, there was always attempt include so-called right self-defense in Taiwan area by US. This attitude of US amounts to compelling their side accept position which it finds absolutely unacceptable. This precisely is greatest obstacle in way making such statement by both sides.

36. Wang said I had properly said that we hold different objectives in matter making statements. He agreed with this view.

37. Wang said if proposed text of my draft accepted it would really be what I had termed it—a declaration of intent to use force instead of statement renouncing use force. Such declaration [he] noted, runs counter to objective in peaceful settlement of disputes.

38. Wang said, next point is what exactly is nature dispute Taiwan area? I had asserted we should not anticipate settlement of differences. He found it hard agree any such statement.

39. Wang said as he had repeatedly declared utterly unjust and unreasonable situation, then this situation is exactly armed seizure Taiwan by US. That is international issue between China and US which we confronted with. This exactly situation which required solution and which they hoped could be peacefully resolved between two countries.

41. Wang said in approaching settlement this dispute, if we do not have clear understanding this situation then it would be very difficult find out correct means for finding settlement.

42. Wang said now he proposed enter into discussion some concrete facts I had mentioned my statement this morning. I had stated that we agreed on desirability for making of statement renouncing force, and that only remaining difficulty was find form words agreeable both which could express this idea. I also had stated and again repeated this morning that I did not demand their side renounce its views or its policies. I had denied I demanded any prerequisites from their side in making any such statement, and I had asked their side to respect views of US.

43. Wang said however their side has always respected any views US which could facilitate relaxation tension Taiwan area, which conducive cement relations two countries, and which could help in smooth resolution differences between us. All these views respected by them. But he must point out most views presented by US on question making declaration renounce use force were unreasonable and unacceptable their side.

44. Wang said for instance, I stated there already existed common view on question of making declaration and only remaining difference one of choice words expressing that idea. But he could not accept this view my side because it tends ignore substance our differences over declaration.

45. Wang said orally I had stated I did not require of their side any prerequisites, but in statement I included demand right self-defense. This nothing but prerequisite.

46. Wang said it always been their view that each state in accordance UN Charter had right self-defense—self-defense its own territory. But US has absolutely no right claim self-defense on territory of another country and they strongly and firmly opposed to this view of US.

48. Wang said to claim right self-defense on territory of another country would tend remind people of events leading to Hitler annexation Austria and Sudeten area Czech. No matter how Hitler at time tried explain his action as exercise self-defense, history has recorded to contrary.

48. Wang said I had also repeatedly stated I did not intend prejudice their rights, policies, or position—these words sounded rather attractive and nice to hear. But these words also tend remind Chinese people of days before Japanese war when Japanese Prime Minister Hirota declared his ignoramus policy toward China. This gentleman Hirota also tried expound so-called policy of coexistence and coprosperity between China and Japan. But this Japanese gentleman in fact harbored only motive of creating puppet regimes in China, such as Pu Yi state in northeast and traitor Wang Ching-wei state in Nanking. Therefore this so-called coprosperity-coexistence policy only resulted unilateral prosperity Japan.

49. Wang said turning now present situation, while I asserting I not requiring their side renounce position, views, or policies that matter, yet at same time I demanding right self-defense Taiwan area by US—this last proposal had turned nice words into empty statements.

50. Wang said at last meeting I also stated that renunciation so-called right self-defense in Taiwan area by US would amount to requirement submission on part US, stated this what US absolutely could not agree to. They could not accept this presentation of this statement. Submission means country or state is forced renounce its sovereign rights in its own territory. If US persists in demanding so-called right self-defense Taiwan area by US, it amounts to demanding submission by China rather than by US.

51. Wang said if US should withdraw demand for so-called right self-defense in Taiwan area, would not be submission but observance UN Charter and in no way could be viewed as submission on part US.

52. Wang said they also share view we now encountering difficulties in conduct our talks. I had asked how we should approach present situation. As he has stated if I would only withdraw demands for untenable self-defense in Taiwan area, it would seem him then that our talks would be able advance and I probably could see their side had made repeated efforts in making their drafts meet points of our side.

53. I said I would ignore his remarks implicitly comparing my country and its policies to those of German Nazis and Japanese militarist aggressors. I did not understand how he felt such remarks could contribute to our making progress here. I simply wanted remind him of expenditure of blood and treasure by American people to free world of scourge of their aggression including freeing of China from Japanese militarists.

54. I said next wanted correct two apparent misunderstandings he appeared have concerning my previous remarks.

55. I said first he quoted me saying this morning we should not anticipate any settlement our differences. I might not have made myself clear my original statement. Sense my statement was that we should not in this declaration anticipate what settlement or any particular settlement of our differences. That is, what settlement would be. I would not be sitting here with him unless my government hopeful have settlement with them.

56. I said what I do say is that we should not, in this initial step of agreeing that our differences would not lead to war, confuse that with the next steps.

57. I said next misunderstanding he apparently might have concerning my remarks that I wanted clear up was his statement he understood me as saying we agreed on principle but only disagreed on words express this. What I in fact said was that until recently I had thought that to be case. I had then said that it had however become increasingly clear that apparently purpose their government from beginning was require my government explicitly or implicitly to renounce its solemnly undertaken international agreements as well as its views and policies. This not something which in these discussions this declaration I asking his government to do, and is something which my government is correspondingly not willing do.

58. I said again I say, let us not confuse this essential first step of agreeing that differences would not lead war, with differences of our views themselves. As he said this morning, and I agree we should in discussing this declaration put to one side things on which we do not agree.

59. I said I would like make as clear as possibly can and see if I could not cut through this difficulty of understanding that seems exist between us.

60. Said he holds certain views with respect Taiwan area and relationship my country that area. As I said this morning in discussing this declaration, I trying respect their right hold those views no matter how opposed to them I may be.

61. I said my government holds its views regard that area. I respect his right peacefully to oppose those views. These are matters of dispute between us.

62. I said I did not feel any proposals I had made sacrificed or prejudiced their views with regard this dispute. I thought for his government to read such meaning into proposals I had made gave it meaning not there at all and not intended be there.

63. I said on other hand, as negotiations have developed on this and in light statements he made here and again made this morning and public statements made by his government, seems very clear that what his government attempting do is demand that in this declaration US renounce its views on our dispute.

64. I said he perfectly free oppose those views. I not asking him agree to them. He free oppose them in any peaceful way.

65. I said what I saying was that it would be complete perversion original purpose this declaration and something to which US could and would not agree—to renounce in this declaration its views.

66. I said seemed very clear me they thus asking US do something that entirely unreasonable, something we not asking them do.

67. I said that was putting situation as I saw it just as clearly and plainly as I could.

68. Wang said he had given number of illustrations this morning in order help understanding situation we now facing. Of course nobody would deny fact US participated in struggle against Naziism. Nobody would deny fact US also suffered attack by Japanese and was thus compelled join in battle against Japan. People have recognized contributions made US in struggle both in East and West and Chinese people have been in very good cooperation in operations against aggressors with US. And blood shed by Chinese people during eight-year war resistance cannot be measured. They finally achieved victory.

69. Wang said it always been their wish US would follow policy laid down by former President Roosevelt. And it not desire Chinese people that US should follow path former Japanese militarists and German Nazis.

70. Wang said Chinese people have suffered tremendously under aggression imperialists very long time. But his people would never be forced into submission before any external power. This compares also with American people who did not submit before event forced on them by Pearl Harbor incident.

71. Wang said in view Taiwan is under occupation of US, they cannot find better way illustrating this situation.

72. Wang said I had stated he had misunderstood my statements and that we should not confuse what I called two steps in settlement our disputes. He did not know how he had misunderstood.

73. Wang said it also their opinion we should approach settlement our disputes step by step and after first step go on to next step and finally try achieve complete settlement dispute.

74. Wang said on their part, they had no prejudice or what I had called anticipation of settlement. On contrary they found selves unreconcilable to position of US in making such a prejudice or anticipation by demanding right self-defense in Taiwan area.

75. Wang said if US persisted demanding in declaration right to so-called self-defense in Taiwan area, it would seem this declaration tantamount requiring China recognize occupation by US of Taiwan as being legal.

76. Wang said if US should insist in demanding so-called right self-defense in Taiwan area, it would exactly confuse what I called two essential steps toward settlement our disputes. I stated first step should be both sides make clear disputes not lead war and second to resolve disputes themselves. But my demand self-defense in Taiwan area exactly confuses these two steps.

77. Wang said if US would withdraw this unreasonable demand, then would enable two of us advance orderly fashion to settlement our disputes. This made necessary in view fact US has already resorted force in Taiwan area, which gives rise to tension there. That why he had asked my side withdraw such unreasonable demand, so as show world common desire peaceful settlement disputes. If US genuinely desires such settlement, did not see why it should insist this unreasonable stand.

78. I said he had asked me withdraw demand I had never made.

79. Wang said did I mean I had never demanded right self-defense in Taiwan area?

80. I said that I had never demanded they prejudice their position with regard that or any other aspect our dispute. What I had said was they demanding that US in this declaration renounce its position. I found it impossible interpret his remarks on this in recent weeks in any other way. Public record also clear on that.

81. I said most recently in his Prime Minister’s speech January 30, in discussing question of our declaration, he specifically stated, “an announcement on renunciation force by both sides must lead to removal of force already used by US”. It impossible for me interpret and, in view public record, impossible world interpret withdrawal of amendment I proposed concerning self-defense as other than renunciation by US of its position. I could not see that amendment which we suggested in this regard was requiring them recognize anything they did not choose recognize, or that they thereby prejudicing their position. However, if they believed it did that, as I had said, I willing listen any suggestion they had as to how the purpose might be accomplished in any other way, and which would at same time meet problem that would be produced concerning position my government if phrase were withdrawn.

82. Wang said I had just stated I not requiring their side accept or recognize what their side would not accept or recognize, and that I not asking them prejudice their position. But if US should insist in right self-defense in Taiwan area, that nothing else but requiring their side recognize US occupation Taiwan. And this exactly prejudicing position Chinese people in exercising sovereign rights over Taiwan.

83. Wang said I had said if US should withdraw defense clause in draft it would be interpreted by world as renunciation by US of its right. Speaking of rights, there are rights in conformity with UN Charter and therefore proper rights, but there are also so-called rights which against spirit UN Charter and which interfere internal affairs other states. If it position US in Taiwan area to claim this co-called right as natural right, it not only would be opposed by Chinese people but also be opposed by people whole world.

84. Wang said he not see how position US would be prejudiced by withdrawing this clause from amendment. Just to contrary, absence that clause in statement will demonstrate that two countries China and US genuinely desirous seeking peaceful solution disputes and renouncing war between them. If, however, I should insist on this unreasonable clause, he did not see how this could lead further progress in talks.

85. I said what he just said seemed me simply confirm what I just saying, that their purpose in this declaration was obtain renunciation by US of its position. That seemed me be real difficulty.

86. Wang said it quite obvious that such declaration provided for peaceful settlement disputes and also at same time provided for parties to declaration to undertake not interfere in internal affairs of others. Chinese people strongly and firmly will oppose to end right of US to self-defense in Taiwan area, which no more than intervention Chinese affairs.

87. Wang said they already made great efforts in discussion declaration and remained for US to make corresponding efforts and take further steps to relieve us from present position. If I had any further constructive suggestion make, they also looking forward to them.

88. I said my constructive suggestion was they withdraw from position which requiring US in this declaration to withdraw from its position.

89. Wang said they could not on their part renounce their position that US should renounce its position. Position of US is one which insists in occupying territory of China. This position indefensible. They had never asked US accept any position their side which meant internal intervention affairs US or occupation US territory.

90. Wang said if I had nothing further he would like bring up another matter.

91. I said all right.

92. Wang then rapidly read long prepared statement on implementation. Said he would now make observations concerning my opening statement regarding implementation first agenda item. As for their side, they always been faithfully carrying out agreement.

93. Wang said however number incidents occurring of late compelled him raise this subject. On many occasions I had tried cover up fact US Government violating agreement by continuing obstruct return Chinese students. But no amount sophistic statements could hide inhuman treatment accorded Liu Yung-ming. Liu’s presence now in Hong Kong showed up my sophistic statements. Must be pointed out that my side, without justification, prevented return Liu with result that he lost his mind.

94. Wang said it only recently, after their side had made representations concerning Liu, that our side compelled release him. However, Liu never violated any US law but yet US expelled him under deportation procedures.

95. Wang said furthermore, on his return passage our side kept him apart from other Chinese, stepped up use of threats against him, and made him mentally unbalanced again. Moreover, he not yet able return. In name Chinese Govt. Wang protesting such inhuman acts in persecution Chinese students. US side must bear responsibility this.

96. Wang said furthermore he had itemized various things in four lists containing names eighteen Chinese and had asked me for accounting why they not returned. As he had pointed out, all desired return, all prevented from doing so. They unable return thus far, and unable communicate with families on account obstructions my government. Chinese people demanded rectification this situation.

97. Wang said had further list seven Chinese in US whose return being prevented (names in fol tel). He raising this with me and asking for accounting along with others. Experience these people showed US side not only failed observe agreement September 10 but also deliberately has broken agreement.

98. Wang said experience Chinese student Liao in present list provided example whereby not difficult see how US Govt. continuing offer obstruction return even after issuance agreed announcement return civilians. Mr. Liao went US end 1948, studied Univ. Chicago. Was on staff teaching mathematics at Agriculture and Mechanics College Stillwater, Oklahoma. Already on way home in 1952 when intercepted by US Government at San Francisco. Later, he formally requested from US Government permission return September 1955, however so far unable return.

99. Wang said he had merely cited single case, there many more. Asked that US take note, immediately stop obstruction, and give report on situation these Chinese students.

100. Wang said on other hand, he had many occasions inquired as to innocent Chinese kept US prisons, but I had submitted no lists. This contrasted strongly cooperative attitude Chinese side which submitted complete lists of Americans in China. He once again asked US side submit complete list these prisoners. If my side sincerely interested implementation it should immediately submit such list. (Here Wang handed me list, saying it full list of seven students, giving full particulars.)

101. I said, first with reference Mr. Liu, I astounded at statements he made about him. According statements in Wang’s letter concerning him, he became mentally ill May 1949. What relation that could have to fact that several years afterwards US imposed restrictions on some few Chinese regarding their departure, I could not understand.

102. I said Mr. Liu simply a very ill man, who been cared for at public expense over long period years. He not only cared for at US public expense, he returned Hong Kong at US public expense. Far from indicating any violation agreed announcement, I thought action US Government his regard spoke for itself. I wished might be possible have same prompt action concerning cases I had raised with him.

103. I said not quite clear me what their charge concerning Mr. Liu was. He had arrived Hong Kong. My understanding he being cared for by British authorities there. Could not believe Wang could be alleging British authorities preventing his return China if he so desired. This really carrying charge that US obstructing people from returning to absurd degree.

104. I said next these vague statements he continuing make concerning US breaking agreement simply unable stand in light facts. I did not ask him accept my word on it. I sure he had available from Indian Embassy in Washington full and real facts. He well knew that in spite free communication Chinese in US enjoy with Indian Embassy, there not been any case in which Indian Embassy felt facts justified any representations to US Govt. that it obstructing departure any Chinese.

105. I said for most part, names and information concerning persons in US allegedly being obstructed departing seem to come down to simple question their writing to people his country. I did not see how he could possibly interpret failure some individuals in US to write letters his country either as evidence they want go his country or that they encountering obstruction in return. As indicated to him in past, my government did not undertake in agreed announcement nor could it undertake any obligation investigate case somebody who does not write letter his country. Nor could it force him do so.

106. I said obligations under agreed announcement very clear. Obligations are not to obstruct departure of any Chinese in US who desires return his country. Obligation is also that people who desire return and feel they encountering obstruction may freely communicate Indian Embassy. Obligation is to permit Indian Embassy investigate facts and if it finds obstruction allow it make representations. Obligation my government receive such representations. My government has in past and will continue fully carry out its obligations. I willing discuss with him here and take up with my govt. any case where there appears any possibility we not carrying out those obligations.

107. I said however my government did not intend investigate cases in which there no showing US Government obstructing departure.

108. I said my authorities investigating case Mr. Yuan Jui-hsiang, in which there claim he being detained by INS. I would inform him results as quickly as available.

109. I said I simply did not understand his persistent reference to persons in US applying for return and being prevented. For example, case Mr. Liao he mentioned this morning—Wang stated he formally requested return from US Government in September 1955. Wang’s information that regard simply could not be correct. As I had said over and over again, there no exit permit, no exit visas, no procedures of any such kind which required of any alien in US. They do not have to apply anyone. All have to do is go.

110. I said I again repeated statement that I entirely satisfied my government not obstructing any way any Chinese who desires do so from departing country. I wished same was situation regarding Americans his country. Repetition these vague charges concerning Chinese in US does not conceal fact this not case with Americans in China.

111. Wang said American Government cannot evade responsibility in case Liu Yung-ming. I had just said Wang recognized in his letter that Liu in mental disorder. This not correct. In his letter, Wang had made quite clear Liu when went US not mentally ill. Far from being ill, he attended university and obtained masters degree. This proof enough he well and not ill at all. Only because desired return and prevented doing so that drove him mental disorder. Very inhuman act, and US Government should bear responsibility.

112. Wang said he would read me letter written by Dr. Hoctor, supervisor hospital Missouri. In letter to friend of Liu, Hoctor wrote, “your friend continues get along very well. However, we have had no recent word from immigration officials about his departure.” This was written December 1950. In February 1951, Hoctor again wrote that Liu improved sufficiently that I think no need further delay in arranging return Hong Kong.
These letters of Dr. Hoctor exactly refuted statement made by me previous meeting that Liu although recovered yet not fit for travel. Then, after authorities hospital stated Mr. Liu improved sufficiently that could make departure, US Government kept him there. For this US must also bear responsibility. After PRC side made representations concerning Mr. Liu and US took steps enable his departure, although Liu had committed no offenses against US law, yet evicted from country under punishment deportation. This another action US Government responsible for.

113. Wang said when Liu on board ship sailing for home, he very delighted finally permitted return, but US authorities kept him in isolation from other Chinese on ship and sent personnel to talk with him and exert pressure on him while ship sailing China. This caused Liu another mental attack. US Government must bear responsibility this also. From this case of Mr. Liu, inhuman acts of US authorities in persecuting and obstructing Chinese in US are fully confirmed.

114. Wang said after his side had made representations with me concerning these 25 Chinese, whose names given me in various meetings, I again tried defend my position by arguing US Government did not require permit for return, that Indian Embassy free communicate with Chinese, and that Chinese in US not being obstructed departure. But facts turn out contrary to what I had alleged on question of Taiwan entry permit requirement, Indian Embassy had made representation US Government and Indian Embassy desired make public announcement on this question. However prevented doing so by US Government. These 25 persons he had so far raised with me were all desirous returning but were actually prevented doing so.

115. Wang said there had been cases Chinese already departed US and on way home but intercepted by agents INS halfway. Also of Chinese who had submitted passport to INS for visas, but no action taken permit departure. Therefore question arises as to which side’s information not correct. I stated information by Wang not correct. On other hand, many occasions he had asked me as to exactly how many Chinese kept in American prisons but I had failed make reply up to present moment.

116. Wang said therefore if US not willing promptly stop its obstructions and carry out agreement between both sides, it should bear responsibility for breaking of agreement.

117. I said I not going take time today attempt answer in detail these statements which I could only term for most part as fantastic and not supported by single shred fact. For example, he had said Indian Embassy been prevented making public announcement. US Government has no way, even if it would, of preventing Indian Embassy stating anything publicly it desired state. He had talked about Chinese being intercepted by immigration authorities. What Chinese? When? Where? I positive there been and is no such case. He had certainly brought up no such case.

118. I said there were such cases of Chinese attempting evade preventive departure order, but that long in past. I had told him over and over again that preventive departure order—which only measure ever taken by my government to prevent departure any Chinese—long ago rescinded.

119. I said he continuing speak of Chinese presenting passports to INS for visas. I did not know how many times I had to tell him that Chinese need obtain no visas from INS or anyone else for departure from US. He aware as well as I that Chinese continually departing freely from US. I had no way knowing whether or not they intend to or do proceed his country—as far as we know, they free do so. Press reports, including press reports his country, indicate some them going his country. With exception small group against whom preventive departure orders issued, that always been case. It now the case without exception.

120. I said if it intent his government to denounce our agreed announcement September 10, it should be clear to him that there were no facts with regard US performance under that announcement that could remotely justify such action. I satisfied that this would be recognized by all honest and disinterested persons everywhere. That was all.

121. Wang said I trying hard defend US failure carry out agreed announcement relating return Chinese from US. No amount argument could achieve that purpose. What I said orally not necessarily represents what actually being carried out. Fact is their attention continually been called to cases Chinese, not having committed any offenses in US, yet unable return homeland. This is situation we now facing.

122. Wang said I had enquired as to what Chinese been intercepted by INS and which Chinese presented passports to INS. He might merely refer to case of Liao, who named in list he gave me. This Liao one of Chinese intercepted half way on way home mainland.

123. I asked was this in 1952? If so, probably correct.

124. Wang said I correct on interception 1952, but what took place in 1952 also influenced things in 1955. Therefore, might remind me to investigate all these cases first before I asked questions as to which intercepted or which presented passports to INS.

125. Wang said if US authorities have in fact refrained from obstructing departure these Chinese, he did not see why their attention repeatedly been called to Chinese who desire return but unable do so. And he also awaiting accounting as to Chinese in US prisons. Point is, since two sides already have reached agreement, duty both is to faithfully implement agreement.

126. I said exactly. I still had to see single case in which US has not done so.

127. Wang said but fact is people desire return but have not yet returned.

128. I said fact is thirteen Americans in his country unable return. This undisputed fact.

129. Wang said this was open to all and quite clear. He meant cases these 13 Americans. Outside these thirteen, most of rest have returned. But as far as known his side, more than thirteen Chinese to date being prevented departure US. Latest number he had given me 25. And their attention would be further called to more such cases. This also serves demonstrate respective manner in which both sides implementing agreed announcement.

130. I said neither these 25 or any other Chinese being prevented from leaving. If they thought they were, entirely free communicate with Indian Embassy.

131. Wang said if only they could freely express their opinions in the US. However, did not see that they could freely express their desire; freedom express desire in US was restricted.

132. I saked if he meant say they afraid write or telephone Indian Embassy.

133. Wang said it seemed even such freedom extremely restricted. And one might ask why US refuses rescind requirement entry permits Taiwan. Unhappy experience Mr. Liu showed how Chinese desiring return driven to mental disorder. All these cases show there been pressure and mental threat against people who desire return their country.

134. I said these cases show nothing except apparent desire Wang’s government, I did not know why, to build case against US on this question which facts simply would not support. Anybody who knows anything at all about US knows facts would not support such allegation.

135. Wang said fact is people desiring return not able do so. Agreement is bilateral so cannot unilaterally ask Chinese implement agreement while no action other country permit departures of Chinese. US concerned with its thirteen men in China. Why cannot Chinese people show their concern for their 25 Chinese in US, or perhaps 250, 2500 Chinese in US? Fact he felt it necessary raise these cases with me was because Chinese people will not tolerate existing situation.

136. I said I had no more to say.

137. Wang said he had no more also.

138. I asked was he agreeable meet next Thursday, February 9?

139. Wang said all right.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–456. Confidential; Limit Distribution.