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

485. Telegram 1479 from Geneva¹

Geneva, February 9, 1956, 11 p.m.

1479. From Johnson.

1. I opened 36th meeting with following prepared statement on renunciation force:

A. In announcements made by our governments last year on July 25, purpose of our talks was set forth very clearly. That purpose was two-fold: to aid in settling matter of repatriation civilians who desired return, and to facilitate further discussions and settlement certain other practical matters at issue between both sides.

B. What were these practical matters? We each recognized most important and urgent matter under this category was situation Taiwan area. However, our respective approaches to problem were very different. Against background of continued threats by your government to initiate hostilities in area, you proposed we immediately abandon these talks and there be meeting of FonMins our two countries to discuss question. In other words you were suggesting US undertake negotiations with you at that level under continued overhanging threat you would resort to hostilities if agreement entirely satisfactory to you was not promptly reached. Stated another way, you were asking such negotiations be conducted under what was in effect [garble] ultimatum.

C. US for its part suggested approach to problem should be first to remove this aspect by making clear neither side intended resort to war enforce its point view, and in that atmosphere undertake discussion our differences only by peaceful means and only to seek their fair and equitable solution.

D. This was proposal I made October 8 last year. So grave was overhanging threat by one side resort to force, particularly in Taiwan area, as to make peaceful and constructive discussion impossible, unless this overhanging threat were removed. In circumstances, to have rejected this proposition would have been admission of lack of real desire or intent settle our disputes peacefully.

E. I proposed whatever was said this regard be fully reciprocal; that it apply with equal force both parties, not asking of one party any more than of other, and only requiring of both parties they declare their intention settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from threat resort to force attain their policy objectives.

F. I proposed this be expressly applicable to Taiwan area, as well as elsewhere. I felt then, as now, if threat resort to force were removed elsewhere but allowed remain Taiwan area, such declaration would be of no real purpose.

G. Finally, I proposed declaration make clear neither side was, by subscribing to it, prejudicing its inherent right self-defense. Since January 12 we have been considering emended draft, which like my previous drafts, was consistent with all these propositions. At our last meeting you indicated you were prepared accept this draft, with exception of last of my propositions, reference to self-defense.

H. You have stated in our recent meetings, and your government has declared publicly, it does not object to principle self-defense, either individual or collective. I will pass over without comment grudging manner in which this admission made, reluctance particularly surprising in country which is party to collective defense arrangements its own, and which even now has troops on foreign territory in defiance United Nations in what it claims to have been exercise of this very right.

I. You have stated, and your government has declared publicly, your only objection is to exercise of this right by US in Taiwan area. I should like to ask you for moment to consider self-defense clause in its proper context. That is, in its relationship to other propositions embodied in our declaration. This relationship is, I think, perfectly clear in my amended draft January 12.

J. Taken in context, implication of self-defense clause is clearly contingent. What it says in effect, is this: if either party should, in violation of this declaration initiate hostilities, or if either party should be attacked by any other party, then party which has been attacked may defend itself.

K. Thus placed in context, which is only way in which I have asked you accept it, self-defense clause not only does not conflict with other propositions embodied in proposed declaration [garble] corollary and supplement to these other propositions. It is completely reciprocal. It is applicable, with complete reciprocity, to Taiwan area.

L. Frankly, Mr. Ambassador, if we take self-defense clause in its proper context, I see only one thing which could render it objectionable. It would be objectionable, certainly, if one side were entering into declaration with false intention of nevertheless initiating use hostilities. It would be objectionable, certainly, from point view of whichever side was insincere renouncing use force to settle our differences.

M. I am reluctant believe all during four long months we have spent discussing this proposition there has not been any real intent on part your government to take this first and essential step toward finding genuinely peaceful solution our differences. I am reluctant believe you have all along been contemplating declaration that would not have been reunification force at all, but rather only pious repetition in bilateral form of hope that our two countries might settle their differences peacefully. Was that hope not already implicit in agreement both sides to hold these talks? Was it not our purpose in these talks progress from hope to realization of hope?

N. As I say, Mr. Ambassador, I am truly reluctant believe your objective in these discussions has been, not to carry us forward, but to take us back to July 25 last year or even prior that time.

O. I am left, however, with just two alternative conclusions. First is, as I have previously pointed out, your position constitutes demand that in negotiating this declaration, US concede to you all points in dispute in Taiwan area, rather than properly leaving them for discussion following agreement between us to declare we will not resort force settle those disputes. Second, is that your objection to self-defense clause arises from fact that you view it in different context from one in which it was intended to be seen. I have tried make it clear, in its intended context, self-defense clause implies no more nor less than this utterly reasonable proposition: if either party should in violation of declaration initiate hostilities, then other party may defend itself. I am unable suggest any [garble] in which that can be set forth than in my amended draft January 12. If you have other suggestions I shall be glad hear them.

2. Wang said he had difficulty understanding my statement and its interpretation, would like retire with assistants to another room to check notes. I agreed. Wang and assistants were out of room from 10:36 to 10:55.

3. On his return, Wang said he had spent few minutes checking notes with interpretation of statement I had made this morning. He agreed that we holding these talks in order settle more important and urgent dispute now existing between China and US.

4. Wang said they had always held hope dispute between two countries might be settled peacefully without use force. At same time they had hoped that Ambassadorial level talks might achieve results they called upon to achieve. However, with reluctance he had to say they disappointed every time.

5. Wang said this been caused by rigid attitude on part US Government which delaying progress and success talks. We find selves at moment still confronted with most urgent and grave dispute unsettled between our two countries. For instance, situation exactly so with regard to negotiations on declaration between both sides, as result continued US persistence in what it terms US right self-defense in Taiwan area, which greatest obstacle in talks.

6. Wang said, as he had said over and over again US has no right at all claim right self-defense Taiwan area. He noted that in my statement this morning I again trying justify position US with regard self-defense Taiwan area. I had again tried defend that position with all sorts arguments. I was alleging that so-called self-defense clause was corollary and supplement to statement.

7. Wang said actually US is trying to make China accept, by means this self-defense clause, US occupation Taiwan as legal and compel China accept US prerequisite.

8. Wang said I had also stated that this clause on self-defense applied equally both sides. However, self-defense clause, instead being applicable both parties equally only applies in favor US.

9. Wang asked whether US could possibly claim right self-defense on foreign territory. Present situation could not be interpreted as Chinese forces being sent American territory to claim self-defense there. Therefore they could not accept my statement this clause applicable both parties.

10. Wang said it no one else but China which had proper right claim self-defense on own territory. Any other foreign country has absolutely no right speak of self-defense on Chinese territory.

11. Wang said furthermore I had made various charges which reversed right and wrong, such as my use term “warlike ultimatum” and my attribution this to China, and such words as “overhanging threat of force”.

12. Wang said it no one else but US which threatening other countries by occupying their territory. Remarks made by Mr. Dulles recently actually such threats as I had described. Chinese people never going be frightened by such threat and would never be brought into submission by threats. Chinese people want exercise own sovereign right and want remove all threats against them.

13. Wang said he also noted that I said Chinese forces in foreign land in defiance UN. Actually Chinese people were rising in opposition to aggressive forces headed by US in gross abuse name of UN, forces which threatening security China.

14. Wang asked whose forces first gone to Korea. If had not been for US armed aggression in attempt threaten security China, Chinese people would not have exercised right self-defense.

15. Wang said next he noted I had said that draft he presented on December one represented retrogression. He could not accept my statement this regard. His draft of Dec one exactly great contribution towards making declaration. His December one draft did not contain anything which not acceptable to either of two sides.

16. Reading now from prepared statement, Wang continued that as US already used force in Taiwan area, any announcement by both sides on non-employment force must necessarily lead to solution of next step. It exactly with this in mind that his draft provided for continuation of talks to seek practical and feasible means for settlement disputes between two countries.

17. Wang said his side firmly of opinion conference of Foreign Ministers should be held settle by negotiation question of tension in Taiwan area. This not what I had said this morning, that they wanted stop present talks in favor of holding FonMin conference. They had never advanced any suggestion along that line or made any suggestion of stopping present talks, and immediately holding Foreign Ministers conference. They had only said that holding conference at Foreign Ministers level is natural outcome of Ambassadorial talks.

18. Wang said however their side had not advanced in their draft announcement any prerequisite, nor had it in draft announcement demanded that my side accept any views which not acceptable. On contrary, it US side which demanded PRC side accept in draft announcement so-called right self-defense on Chinas territory Taiwan.

19. Wang said on number occasions in previous meetings I even repeatedly alleged that US holding on to Taiwan purely for self-defense and that holding US forces in Taiwan entirely in conformity with arrangements of collective self-defense. These remarks serve confirm that what I had wanted with insertion so called right self-defense was that PRC side recognize status quo of American seizure Taiwan as well as US-Chiang treaty. How could this be explained away as not requiring PRC side renounce its position?

20. Wang said at last meeting I had stated and again had made similar statement this morning, that I willing listen any suggestions that would meet problem that would be produced for my govt if clause on self-defense were simply withdrawn.

21. Wang said if US position indeed as I had put it, as not desiring prejudice position or views either side, then their draft exactly on that line, as it does not contain any prerequisite nor does it require submission of either side. If, however, position is to require their side accord recognition to American seizure Taiwan as well as US-Chiang treaty and accept American aggressive acts as legal, then US must give up this position, as it would require submission their side, and would deprive continuation of talks of all meaning.

22. Wang said I had repeatedly stated that I willing listen any suggestion their side might have; their suggestion very simple and straightforward: their draft announcement of December one last year is proposal acceptable to either side. If there real intent make such announcement, he failed see any reason why we could not reach agreement on draft of their side of December one.

23. I replied it seemed me that we faced somewhat same problem which I had often discussed and did not intend belabor this morning. That is, whether our objective here is to momentarily give world surface appearance of agreement, but in fact, because lack of meeting of minds, there would be no agreement. I did not conceive this to be real purpose and did not believe it would really contribute anything to situation to follow such course. In fact, seemed me that in end it could only be counterproductive.

24. I said question between us of most fundamental nature was whether either side intends initiate hostilities in Taiwan area in attempt settle our dispute there in that manner. We really renounce all appeal to force settle that dispute.

25. I said I had carefully attempted avoid discussion substance this dispute itself at this stage. Wang had in past and again this morning, and his govt had in its public statements, it seemed to me, continued confuse this question of substance our dispute and question of agreeing simply that we would not use force settle this dispute. Neither one of us questioned fact there is dispute there.

26. I said Wang had often set forth his position re substance that dispute. As I had said last meeting, I did not dispute his right hold those views and advocate them by all peaceful means. He well knew I opposed those views but I not trying force my opinions on him at this stage.

27. I said Wang well knew it position my govt that Taiwan and off-shore islands we had just been discussing not their territory and never been their territory. I was not asking Wang accept that view. However, appeared to me, at this stage in discussing this declaration, Wang was continuing insist my govt concede to their view on that matter.

28. I said view my govt is Taiwan, which ceded to Japan by China, was surrendered by Japan 1945 under orders SCAP and that it now lawfully administered and held by GRC which sovereign govt. It is with that govt that US has treaty relationships and obligations. However, this all concerns substance our dispute.

29. I said position he taking seemed me required US in effect to say it has no rights in Taiwan area and to abandon its position with regard to our dispute. As he had again said this morning, he looked upon declaration we discussing as of necessity leading to, if I understood correctly, abandonment by US of its position. I think it entirely wrong to regard this declaration as “leading to” abandonment its position by either side.

30. I said what it should lead to is establishment of conditions under which solution of these difficulties by peaceful means can be achieved. It not proper to regard this declaration as of itself effective solution of these disputes.

31. I said as I pointed out this morning, it hard for me to reconcile his objection to self-defense clause with genuine intent not to use force to settle our disputes. If both sides say they will not use force to settle their disputes and genuinely carry that out, there would be no need to call into operation by either side of the self-defense clause. It would only be if one party did not carry out statement it had made regarding not using force that self-defense clause would become operative. Therefore, if his govt really intends to declare that only peaceful means will be used in settlement of our dispute, it can have no objection to self-defense clause.

32. I said I shared his concern over time we had spent still without settling these problems between us. I certainly have not taken any rigid attitude on this question. I simply trying make certain that we thoroughly understand each other. If there could be real understanding and agreement regard to this question of use of force without reservations, we could have long ago have said so and proceeded to discussion those other matters. I continue hope that it will be possible for us do so.

33. I said, however seemed be that we still faced with lack real agreement between us on this subject. I still in doubt whether his govt agrees that only peaceful means will be used in settlement disputes between us. If I wrong, hope he will correct me.

34. Wang said they had always held that we should employ peaceful means and by means negotiations should settle Sino-US disputes in Taiwan area. If not been for purpose peacefully settling these disputes, he would not have been sitting with me and engaging in these talks.

35. Wang said position his side on settlement of disputes in Taiwan area has been made clear repeatedly. Their position is liberation of Taiwan and exercise of their own sovereign rights.

36. Wang said I had set forth views of US Govt in this respect. He shocked by my statement, which seemed extremely absurd and which entirely distorts history on question of Taiwan. I had stated that Taiwan and offshore islands have never been part of Chinese territory. This entirely a self contradictory statement.

37. Wang said he understands that in US there are two parties in politics. But existence of different parties in any state does not represent existence different governments within that state. What been done by Republican or Democratic parties cannot be argued away as not done by US.

38. Wang said as matter history, Taiwan and offshore islands belonged China and been part Chinese territory long before US emerged as a state. Chinese island of Taiwan has been subjected number times in history to occupation by foreign imperialists. However, all those imperialist occupations Chinese island of Taiwan have always ended eventually in downfall imperialist rule and Taiwan always returned to arms of China. It highly insulting to Chinese people to claim that Taiwan and offshore islands not belong China.

39. Wang said it served no purpose in this conference room to reiterate such claims. On their part, they never had asserted New York not part US territory. Nor asserted US of today still British colony. They not think any such assertions would serve any useful purpose.

40. Wang said I had also set forth position US as having so-called treaty relations with Chiang Kai-shek regime. As he repeatedly had pointed out, regime Chiang Kai-shek long been overthrown by Chinese people, long been discarded by Chinese people, and it had no right sign any treaty with any foreign country. All such excuses with regard treaty obligations toward regime Chiang Kai-shek were no more than vain attempts argue away untenable position of occupation by US of Taiwan, which Chinese territory. This situation which now facing reminds them of what Japanese imperialists had done in asserting they had treaty relations with puppet regime in Manchukuo and with puppet regime Wang Ching-wei.

41. Wang said such treaty relationships have never been recognized by Chinese people and to insist in such recognition is greatest farce in eyes people world. Neither puppet Pu Yi or traitor Wang Ching-wei in past, nor Chiang Kai-shek regime of today, can ever be considered as a state. US attempt to justify occupation of Taiwan by excuses of having treaty relations with Chiang Kai-shek regime is something like drowning man grasping at straws.

42. Wang said I had stated that making of declaration would lead to abandonment of US position. As he had indicated above, such position of US cannot be considered as proper position at all. Wang asked if we could find any clause in UN Charter as justifying one country’s seizing territory of another country?

43. Wang said their position as he had said had always been that we, in atmosphere of calm and peaceful discussion, and without hostilities, and with conciliatory attitude, should both sides together try reach solution. If we should demonstrate ill feeling these talks, did not see how we could succeed.

44. Wang said I might recall that proposal for making such declaration made by US, not by their side. And they accepted this proposal of US and agreed with necessity for making such declaration. They also recognized that making of such declaration would be useful. It would be useful in that it would demonstrate to world that two of us, China and US, determined settle disputes peacefully without resort hostilities; such declaration not only conforms to interests both peoples but also meets aspirations of people world.

45. Wang said we however faced with tremendous difficulties on our way to making such declaration. This is fact we have both recognized. Might be asked, wherein lie our difficulties?

46. Wang said now difficulty we facing is that of US persistence insisting inclusion clause US called right self-defense in Taiwan area in agreed announcement. His views regard this matter set forth over and over again and he not able enumerate how often he had set forth such views. Might be asked if we should not try overcome this difficulty. On their part, they always maintained position we should overcome this difficulty we facing and make progress in talks. We should not give up efforts advance talks in face difficulty we facing. Question remains is how shall we overcome this difficulty?

47. Wang said in his opinion, two essential points will help us in our efforts. First, each of us should show spirit conciliation; that is, make joint efforts. Without spirit mutual conclusion and mutual conciliation, no agreement can be reached.

48. Wang said I would recall that Oct 27 original draft their side contained three paras, first two quoting clauses UN Charter and last clause dealing with FonMin conference by two countries. Afterwards, I had advanced objections to certain respects this draft. After I expressed objections, their side made tremendous efforts and concessions and finally put forward amended draft of Dec. 1, which amended some of wording their original draft. This effort was made to meet my points. However, all US proposals—whether our proposal Oct 8, or draft Nov 10, or Jan 2 draft amendments—have persisted in inclusion so-called self-defense clause.

49. Wang said by comparing our respective drafts, can be seen which side making concessions and which side not making concessions. That why he said we should make mutual concessions. If only one side required make concessions, we cannot make progress talks.

50. Wang said second point he wanted make, in order overcome our difficulty, was that both sides should first try find those points in common and thereby then overcome points of difference. It true on this matter that there some points common both sides and some points difference between us.

51. Wang said for instance, desirability making declaration renunciation force is point common both us. Then both agreed that in making such declaration no prerequisite should be advanced for either side. Then it agreed we should not confuse step of making declaration with substance our disputes. We also agreed that making of such declaration would create favorable atmosphere between us. We have no disputes between us on points mentioned above.

52. Wang said if we agreed that two steps should not be confused, he really found difficult see why US should insist inclusion self-defense clause which exactly confusing making of declaration with substance of dispute.

53. Wang said as he viewed situation we now confronting, we have many difficulties confronting us, but we should try settle differences one by one. If we do share this common understanding of trying settle problem step by step then and only then can there be better hope our settling our disputes.

54. I said he had listed four points on which he had stated we were in agreement. I agreed with him that if we were in genuine agreement on those four points, plus one more point I about to mention, we should be able arrive at agreement on announcement.

55. I said additional point I would add would be whether we were in agreement that only peaceful means will be used settle our disputes. Not that peaceful means will be, as he previously termed it, used “if possible”. “If possible” would be by whose standards? Or who would judge “if possible”? Settlement of disputes by peaceful means can be meaningful only if both sides unconditionally subscribe to this doctrine.

56. I said he had also said that we agreed that there be no prerequisites. However, I wanted ask how it possible me interpret position he taken here and his government taken publicly with regard withdrawal self-defense clause, other than conceding to them by US of most fundamental points our dispute in Taiwan area.

57. I said other question I wanted ask, to see if we could advance understanding between us, was what he thought should happen if, in violation of declaration, one side should initiate hostilities.

58. Wang said he might point out there two aspects what I said in my statement: One, relationship between China and US, and other relationship between China and Chiang Kai-shek regime. Seemed him we should not confuse these two aspects with each other.

59. Wang said regarding relationship with Chiang Kai-shek clique, as had stated previously, they will try to bring about peaceful settlement if circumstances allow. They not changed this position right up to now.

60. Wang said, however regarding disputes with US, they always stated that they should settle disputes with US peacefully without use force between two countries.

61. Wang said as he had often said, Chinese people and American people friendly to each other and these two countries should try settle disputes by peaceful means without any fighting between two of them.

62. Wang also said this intent was clearly included in their draft of statement December 1, in which they stated two countries should settle disputes peacefully without resort to force and they want make this determination known whole world. This really declaration of peace.

63. Wang said then they had said they would continue to seek necessary practical means for realization settlement of disputes. That idea also accepted by myself. He thought this statement which both sides should agree to and did not see how it could be objected to.

64. Wang said on other hand, by withdrawing self-defense clause by US from proposal, US would sustain no loss or harm their drafts, in addition to declaration determination peaceful settlement disputes between two countries, provided for further research into peaceful means for settlement disputes between two.

65. I said this not very directly answering questions I asked, and which I asked in honest effort see whether we could not get ahead on this. I hoped if I could not have my answers today, that he would consider them and answer me at next meeting.

66. Wang said their views been set forth very clearly, could not be any clearer than he had stated it. Their view is we should strive for making statement. He hoped I would give further consideration Dec 1 draft and be in position to state my views at next meeting.

67. I said I had nothing further but would like turn to another question.

68. Wang said good. (At this point they started gather up papers then, noting I still seated, Wang continued:) Oh, you have another matter to take up?

69. I said if it were all right with him. I then read following prepared statement on implementation:

A. At our last meeting you made series charges against my govt concerning case unfortunate Mr. Liu Yung-ming, these charges were so exaggerated and so at variance with plain facts I found it hard to credit you were serious in stating them.

B. Facts with regard Mr. Liu are perfectly plain. In May 1949, Mr. Liu, then student in US, became ill. His sickness was of mind: type sickness against which, unfortunately, scholastic degree is no magic amulet.

C. Mr. Lius illness is fact. It is also fact had Mr. Liu not been incapacitated by illness and had he desired return China, he would have been able do so. There were no restrictions on departure of any Chinese, students or otherwise, from US at that time. To contrary, it is fact that approximately 1,000 Chinese students returned your country in 1949 and 1950. This number not only returned but 637 of them had their passages paid by US Govt.

D. Mr. Lius need for continued treatment beyond his initial period in hospital is also fact. Between 1950 and 1951, Mr. Liu had apparently reached stage at which travel would have been possible. Hospital authorities, desiring return Mr. Liu his home if possible, communicated with Mr. Lius father in Hong Kong, only one Mr. Lius relatives who had taken trouble correspond with hospital about him. They did not say Mr. Liu had no further need treatment. On contrary, that was clearly communicated to Mr. Lius father, and father expressly requested hospital continue its treatment.

E. Hospitals treatment Mr. Liu was in fact continued at public expense so long, and only so long, as there appeared be no responsible relative Mr. Lius ready and able assume responsibility providing him care he needed. As soon as my govt. was informed, and was able pass info on to hospital that Mr. Lius wife had expressed wish to have him return, arrangements were made and carried out for Mr. Lius prompt departure. Mr. Liu sailed from San Francisco Jan 8 on ship President Wilson, and arrived Hong Kong Feb 1.

F. These arrangements Mr. Lius departure were communicated to Indian Embassy, which expressed its entire satisfaction. Arrangements were also made known to Red Cross Society your country. Arrangements were made known you here. Your govt thus knew Mr. Liu was arriving Hong Kong Feb 1. Your govt also knew, as I made it clear to you here, Mr. Liu was not fully recovered, and still required care and attention.

G. Why, if your govt was genuinely concerned about Mr. Lius welfare, were no arrangements made by your authorities for his reception and care? Why did Mr. Lius wife not arrive Hong Kong until Feb 5, four days after Mr. Lius arrival?

H. I am afraid, Mr. Ambassador, and I say this with reluctance, these facts point to conclusion as inescapable as it is repugnant. Quite deliberately, your govt chose exploit for propaganda purposes Mr. Lius unfortunate mental condition.

I. This conclusion, repugnant as it is, is completely consistent with the recent efforts erect propaganda smoke screen behind which conceal stark failure your govt carry out provisions our agreed announcement Sept 10 with respect return Americans your country.

J. You stated at our last meeting you expected to have your attention called to names of additional Chinese in U.S., to 250, or to 2,500. And why not? Unhampered by any regard for facts or evidence, and without any consideration for desires individuals or their families, why could not your govt multiply these numbers endlessly?

K. Mr. Ambassador, there are 13 Americans in prison your country. You know they are there, I know it, and world knows it. We all know they want to come home. We all know they are being prevented from doing so, in spite of clear promise made on Sept 10 last year.

L. Mr. Ambassador, 250, 2,500, or 5,000 empty and fanciful charges unsupported by facts, unsupported by any evidence, unsupported by Indian Embassy, cannot balance off these thirteen Americans. Nor can any number hypothetical cases obscure or justify attempt your govt use these 13 Americans extract political concessions.

M. If your govt is really interested improving our relations, it will no longer delay in carrying out its obligation with respect these 13 Americans.

70. Wang replied with prepared statement amplified by ref penciled notes saying that previously in course about dozen meetings he had been repeatedly and concretely calling my attention to series of acts testifying to US violation Sept 10 agreement between both sides and had asked me to promptly stop those unjust acts. However, so far they had not witnessed any steps improve situation.

71. Wang said, instead their attention repeatedly been called to fact my govt obstructing departure Chinese from US. He did not see how our persistence in ignoring agreement could possibly help in further progress our talks.

72. Wang said inhuman treatment received by Chinese national Liu Yung-ming sufficed demonstrate how cruel US Govt been in its ill treatment Chinese nationals in US who desire come back China. He would make further observations concerning case Liu in few minutes.

73. Wang said next he would call my attention concrete fact that US Govt compelling Chinese students obtain entrance permits Taiwan and apply for permanent residence. Chinese student, Mr. Tseng Kuang-chih, wrote family 1952 that he would be coming home after graduation in US. However, recently New Years card reached family in which he wrote that he been obstructed from returning by US Govt many years and not been able return up to present, and that US Govt was trying induce him apply permanent residence.

74. Wang said another Chinese student, Mr. Chao Chung-yun previously often wrote to family and he also indicated he would come back after completion studies. However letter from him mid-August 1955 stated US Govt insisting on keeping Chinese nationals in US and that US Govt was annoyed with those Chinese who insist on returning home, and US Govt giving them lot of trouble and trying to compel Chinese students who did not apply permanent residence in US to apply Taiwan entry permits instead.

75. Wang asked were not difficult plights encountered by these two Chinese to whose cases our attention been called, were not these cases clear evidence of US violation of agreed announcement?
Could above tactics employed by US Govt be explained away as not intended deprive Chinese forever of ability return to homeland?

76. Wang said I should look into situation these two Chinese students and give accounting of them and immediately stop those unjust acts, or else bear all responsibility for breaking agreed announcement. (Here Wang handed me list two names, transmitted in separate tel).

77. Wang said so far US has failed give accounting of Chinese prevented from returning and whose names he gave me in five separate lists with request that I give accounting.

78. Wang said moreover, even in cases those 103 Chinese students whom US admitted it had prevented from returning, so far 32 them not yet returned. These people all been subjected obstruction by US and return was prevented. He wanted say most emphatically once again that US has all responsibility to give accounting for every one these people.

79. Wang said I had asserted that Indian Embassy so far not made representations with US Govt concerning any obstruction in departure Chinese and that Indian Embassy so far had not indicated its ability perform its functions under agreed announcement been interfered with. He must point out that US so far failed submit list Chinese nationals in US so that Indian Embassy finds it difficult perform its functions. US had even refused permit Indian Embassy make announcement accordance with agreed announcement setting forth information that all Chinese in US including those who been compelled apply permanent residence or been compelled secure entry permits Taiwan are all entitled return. Was this not grave act in violation agreed announcement?

80. Wang said he wanted raise question Chinese in prison in US in all seriousness. Although he had made repeated ref regarding Chinese in prison, my side had so far not taken any measures regarding Chinese in prison US. This situation not satisfactory.

81. Wang said I had once asserted that in my knowledge there no Chinese in US prisons. Fact is, in accordance with reports from Chinese who returned recently there many innocent Chinese in prison US. As to exactly how many Chinese nationals being imprisoned by US and exactly what their status and condition, US side must speedily give accounting for all of them.

82. Wang said there many points in my statement re Liu Yung-ming which at variance with facts. As matter fact, Liu sent US to further his studies and when he went he was in normal health. He even completed his studies and obtained degree, which also indicates that during that period he enjoying normal health.

83. Wang said Liu suffered illness of mind simply because US prevented his return which caused his nervous breakdown. Wang must strongly protest to US against such acts of persecution Liu.

84. Wang said in bringing up case Liu US Govt has made many false and dishonest statements about Liu. First, it was stated Liu in hospital and not fit travel. Then US stated Liu could not obtain transit visas Hong Kong. All this false. All this at variance with facts, and fabrications.

85. Wang said when Liu began journey home, state of mind was normal. However, on way home and while he on board ship, Americans often came to talk with him and terrorize him. This resulted in fresh nervous breakdown on part Liu. Even when ship anchored Yokohama, somebody came aboard with fake letters from family with which they tried deceive Liu and change his mind. Similar incidents also took place while Liu in refugee camp in Hong Kong.

86. Wang said US authorities and US Red Cross originally informed PRC side that Liu would be escorted or sent to border town of Shumchun on Feb 1. Chinese Red Cross specially sent doctor to accompany Mrs. Liu and other members family to proceed to border and receive Liu.

87. Wang said however soon as Liu arrived Hong Kong, fresh fabrication again made to effect Liu did not desire return China and attempts made keep him in Hong Kong. Attempts were thus made detain Liu again. If one to speak about repugnant or inhuman acts this most repugnant and inhuman act of all. Man has already been terrorized into becoming crazy man and still attempts being made persecute this unfortunate person.

88. Wang said experience Liu suffices show how Chinese who desire return subjected to that sort of treatment. This could not fail to add all more to increasing concern of Chinese people over vast number Chinese remaining in US.

89. Wang said Chinese had not yet seen any action taken by US to withdraw requirement for Chinese in US to secure Taiwan entry permits. As indicated on list he had given me, fresh attempts been made cause Chinese in US apply for permanent residence in US. This unheard of in history international affairs, violates human rights and violates agreement between both sides.

90. Wang said from stories given by Chinese who recently returned from US, picture can be drawn of how USINS authorities gone wild in their treatment of Chinese. In eyes of Chinese nationals, INS become symbol of hell.

91. Wang said Chinese nationals have full lawful right ask for return their country. This been made provision in agreed announcement of Sept 10 last year. What right had US compel these unfortunate people obtain American citizenship and stay in US for so long? If US thought its population not big enough, even in that case it could not resort to this means of increasing its population.

92. Wang said this contrasts strongly with treatment of Americans in China by Chinese authorities. Even in case American who refused to return to US for moment and even if it happened that in future he changes mind and desires return to US, Chinese Govt would not attempt detain him. This attitude of Chinese Govt beyond comparison with action of US Govt in forcibly detaining Chinese in US.

93. Wang said I had said that number of Chinese who desire return as given me by him were what I termed empty, fanciful, unsupported by facts. Might he ask about 103 Chinese students who US admitted had been prevented from returning, was it not fact that 32 of them still not been able return? Was it not fact that 27 persons including those named on todays list not yet returned?

94. Wang said it quite true there are still 13 Americans in Chinese prisons. But how many Chinese are locked up behind bars in US prisons and whose names US has failed submit to Wangs side?

95. Wang said if US refuses take measures improve treatment Chinese who desire return in accordance with agreed announcement between two sides, and if US refuses make accounting of Chinese of whom he had asked accounting, then US has no right ask about these 13 Americans.

96. Wang said agreement must be carried out by both sides. It impermissible, while one side carrying out agreement, for other side to be violating it.

97. I said I had only few simple things say. First is, he stated people writing to his country alleging they being obstructed in returning. I not seen any case yet in which there any definite facts they being obstructed.

98. I said however over and beyond that I not see how he could allege that people feel free to and are writing his country and if genuinely desire return his country and feel obstructed, why they do not communicate with Indian Embassy. On very fact of it, this incredible.

99. I said next let me say his allegations here on one hand seem to relate to Chinese who desire return and on other hand to those who desire remain US or do not desire return his country. I wanted point out agreed announcement concerned only those who wanted return his country. Those who desire stay US or go other destinations are not proper subject our discussions here.

100. I said however with regard persons who do desire stay US, I wanted point out few simple facts. I mentioned these before, but apparently he not understood.

101. I said under US immigration laws, person coming US for temporary visit is admitted for certain definite period time. If admitted as student—in student status, with what we call student visa—his stay there dependent on maintaining student status. In any event, when he applies for visa, must be able show that at end temporary stay he able proceed another destination. If temporary visitor, and end approaches of time for which he originally admitted and he desires extend stay, he must be able proceed another destination at end his extended stay. If he desires change status from that of temporary visitor or that of student and wishes remain US to accept employment, he must change status to that of permanent resident.

102. I said this all matter perfectly free choice of individual. In general, these laws been in effect US over long period years. Apply equally all non-Americans.

103. I said as far as becoming American citizen concerned, process is long and surrounded many safeguards both for individual and country. US never has, and I satisfied never will, force anyone become US citizen. Such policy would obviously be against our self interest. Our interest is that persons who do become citizens be attached to principles our govt. We certainly do not want any reluctant citizens.

104. I said to return to subject aliens. Regardless status under immigration laws—whether temporary visitor, student, permanent resident, or whatever status—he at all times free depart US for any destination his choice. This applies all aliens in US, Chinese as well as others.

105. I said he also continued speak of supposed 32 Chinese out of the 103, who still not returned. As said many times before, and seems necessary say again: I never said those 103 against whom preventive departure orders issued, desired return his country. Some may have, as shown fact they returned; some may not have. Those preventive departure orders, as I had explained, were issued without regard whether individual desired return. Issuance preventive departure order was no evidence one way or other individual wanted depart or not. Each person concerned this order individually informed when order withdrawn. Thus, apart from question their knowledge agreed announcement, each knows he entirely free depart. If does not do so, it matter own choice. If feels being obstructed, can communicate freely Indian Embassy at any time.

106. I said I would not take our time further discuss case Mr. Liu. He and I both been at universities. Illness Liu suffered from, as we both know, is unhappily not absent any group students. My experience, expect in his also, it often most brilliant students who often susceptible this illness. Liu evidently very brilliant person of this type.

107. I said Liu very unfortunate young man and we had done our best care for him and cure him. Regretted he not fully recovered before he returned his country. Hoped that recovery which he has started will be completed and he will be entirely restored his faculties.

108. Wang said in any case, could not find acceptable explanation regarding Liu by explaining illness as frequent occurrence among brilliant students. All this is device intended obscure true responsibility.

109. Wang said I had asked why, if persons desire return, they not communicating Indian Embassy. Answer is because these students and nationals now residing in US. Confronted by measures taken by US Govt, difficult for these people express own free will. Fact that Indian Embassy, as foreign mission in US, is prevented from making public statement it asked to make—this helps make them understand situation Chinese students.

110. Wang said I had enumerated laws of INS. I had said some laws and regulations INS of long standing. But such immigration laws and regulations must not prejudice agreement between us. If any such immigration laws can be used to prejudice agreement, what is use of such an agreement between our two sides?

111. Wang I said had repeated statement that Chinese in US free depart. However as far as their information concerned, 27 Chinese in addition to 32 who desired return are still unable do so. Unless these 32 and 27 return, they cannot bring themselves believe assertion they free return.

112. Wang said I had stated US does not force anyone acquire US citizenship. However cases two students whose names given me this morning show to contrary that people being forced remain in US. Until these two persons accounted for, they cannot believe US not forcing people acquire US citizenship.

113. Wang said as he already suggested, it necessary both sides faithfully implement agreement between us. He again asked US Govt change and improve treatment Chinese desiring return.

114. Wang said until requirement for Taiwan entry permits withdrawn, until requirement forced permanent residence withdrawn, until all Chinese desiring it are returned, until accounting Chinese in US prisons is given, they cannot say US is faithfully implementing agreement.

115. I said he seemed be talking about Chinese who wish remain US, not those desiring return.

116. Wang said he given me names 27 persons, all desiring return. He requires me look into situation these people. Could I say all these did not desire return?

117. I said I did not understand him. He seemed be saying in some mysterious way, I did not know how, US was selecting people, permitting some return some not. I did not understand. To best my knowledge, no way know exactly where they go after leaving US. At least 189 travelled his country since Jan last year.

118. I said it my understanding that 35, or about 35, of persons who arrived Feb 1, on Pres Wilson at Hong Kong had proceeded his country. I did not know how many others may have gone by other routes.

119. Wang said what he had said quite clear: US was obstructing return. He asked that US change situation. What he saying to me concerns those desiring return who not yet returned. Did I mean say 32 of 103 whose names he had given me, after I had made investigation I able establish all 25 did not desire return now? Have they decided they do not want return?

120. I said I had never I said 103 wanted return. They may have, they may not have. Only test is whether they do return. All free return.

121. Wang said what about 25? Did I say they free.

122. I said I did.

123. Wang asked did I carry out investigation?

124. I said I said they free return.

125. Wang said was this formal reply after investigations.

126. I said I had nothing add.

127. Wang said it cannot be established these able return. He recalled I had stated I would account for one of the Chinese, but he had seen no accounting.

128. I said I had no report as yet but would give it him when available. Wanted point out agreed announcement provided there be no obstruction departure people. Did not say there would be screening all nationals to determine what they wanted to do. I said they free decide what wanted do. Every Chinese national is free decide.

129. Wang said as matter fact, in spite words of US saying they free go, on other hand there are obstructions. I had indicated I not yet obtained information regarding Yuan Jui-hsiang and not able today give any accounting. Yet how could I have information that all these 25 free return?

130. I said I knew that under laws and regulations my country there no obstructions departure.

131. Wang said I said there no obstructions, but he had list here 25 been obstructed and not yet able return. He asked US cease all obstructions. Before return these Chinese, cannot realize US has ceased obstruction. Said had nothing more.

132. I said I had nothing more, and suggested meeting on Thursday, Feb 16.

133. Wang referred to next week being a Chinese holiday and suggested following Monday, February 12. On my hesitating and consulting calender, Wang suggested alternate of next Saturday, Feb 18.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–956. Confidential; Limit Distribution.