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

582. Telegram 1800 from Geneva¹

Geneva, April 19, 1956, 4 p.m.

1800. From Johnson.

1. After Wang failed agree my suggestion he open meeting, I opened by reading prepared statement:

A. I have at our recent meetings been attempting obtain your cooperation in formulating language acceptable to both us to embody meaningful agreement in renunciation use of force to settle our disputes. I have patiently pointed out in great detail lack any real foundation your stated objections to revisions which I suggested January 12 your draft of December 1. I have also pointed out that if you nevertheless maintained your objections those revisions, and if your government genuinely shared desire my government for meaningful declaration this regard, it now clearly obligation your side make suggestions that would assist us in finding mutually acceptable language. I been expecting you would offer such suggestions and have repeatedly declared willingness listen and carefully consider anything helpful you might offer this regard. At last meeting I particularly solicited your cooperation in finding mutually acceptable language and asked for any thoughts you had that would help in giving further consideration this matter, yet you offered no such suggestion simply insisting you had made your position clear at previous meetings. Because this insistence, and in spite of difficulties occasioned by your unwillingness cooperate with me in search for acceptable alternatives, I have carefully restudied your statements our previous meetings concerning revisions which I suggested January 12 remove ambiguities your December 1 counterdraft. I have done this in further effort my part see if some way could not be found resume progress our discussions.

B. In connection my first amendment concerning right self-defense, as I often said, I always assumed you considered this as important from your standpoint as we did from ours.
In fact you have repeatedly declared here and your government has stated publicly there no objection to object [subject] in view your governments past assertions that very right.

C. In connection my second amendment making clear declaration considered be applicable by both sides to Taiwan area as well as elsewhere, you repeatedly agreed gravest our disputes was that with respect Taiwan area, and have said any declaration intent discuss and settle our disputes peacefully must cover our dispute there. In fact, if my recollection correct, you have said failure include that dispute would be tantamount to requiring your government recognize status quo there and surrender its sovereign rights.

D. Thus, as I understand your position, your objections to my January 12 revisions are to neither them as such but to some special connection which you seem see between them. Apparently you saw in juxtaposition these two amendments attempt to trick you into saying something which might be interpreted as renunciation your position with regard to merits our dispute in Taiwan area and recognition of status quo. I have repeatedly assured you there was neither such intention my part nor was language open that interpretation. I have repeatedly tried make clear my only purpose has been and remains to obtain agreement on declaration that will make it unmistakably clear between ourselves and to world that neither us will initiate use of force in attempt enforce our views, and in that atmosphere will seek resolution our differences. Therefore, in further effort reach agreement I have restudied my January 12 revision your December 1 counterproposal.

E. In order completely remove any possible basis for misunderstanding which apparently gave rise your objections, I have entirely separated my amendments by placing amendment self-defense in preamble of declaration. In order make this point even clearer I have also included specific statement in preamble to effect entire declaration made without prejudice pursuit by each side its policies by peaceful means.

F. Reference Taiwan area is made only at end second paragraph which otherwise retains exact language your draft December 1. In order meet your point view I have also dropped two minor language changes which I had proposed for that paragraph. Draft thus otherwise conforms exactly language and form your December 1 draft. My second revision your December 1 counterproposal thus reads: (I then read substantive portion 2nd revision per paragraph 3 Deptel 1892).

G. Am confident this draft entirely conforms relevant views both sides, without prejudicing views of either side on merits our disputes. Would hope prompt agreement can be reached this draft in order we can proceed these talks in accordance with its terms.

2. Wang requested 15 minute recess study draft.

3. Following recess, Wang said he had just studied draft I gave him this morning, could only say he disappointed with it. Just as I had said this morning, we had discussed subject making joint declaration for long time already, he very dissatisfied we so far unable arrive at agreement for draft proposed declaration. In my statement this morning I had made remark necessary both sides push forward discuss difficulties between us with spirit cooperation, but draft submitted this morning did not seem to him offer any new progress on subject. As I had stated, hitherto central point of dispute between us concerned with US claim right of self-defense in Taiwan area. In this morning’s draft I had made change in location clause concerning so-called self-defense right, but as stated in Chinese proverb, although form changed content still all the same. Therefore, it seemed to him all my drafts—those of November 10, January 12, and this morning—were identical in substance.

4. Wang said he then noted reference Taiwan area in new draft not in context FonMin meeting as contained his Oct 27 draft. Such reference Taiwan area as I had made this morning’s draft had caused their persistent opposition because such reference would mix up international disputes with an internal issue. They had been asserting their opposition such a reference to Taiwan area in same way as they had been opposed so-called self-defense right in our drafts. Furthermore it necessary give further study drafts wording. Of course, he would give further study this draft, reserve further comment for next meeting.

5. I said I had just couple small comments on his reference to other minor changes in draft. I had pointed out in statement there were no other minor changes and that my previous suggestion changes had been deleted and I had gone back precisely to his Dec 1 draft. As far as English text concerned, it otherwise followed exactly English text he had given Dec 1. Had he noted any changes?

6. Wang said he would give further study to whole thing.

7. I said that as I had pointed out my statement this morning, I felt this draft did answer objections previously raised, did give us text upon which we could both agree. It was offered in that spirit and I hoped would be studied in that spirit. I looked forward to his remarks next meeting, because I thought if he did study draft in same spirit as authors he would find it as something meeting position both sides. Nothing more on that this morning and unless he had more I had something else I would like to talk about.

8. Wang said he would give further study and make further comment next meeting. However, as he had pointed out this morning, could not agree with my statement present draft being offered in spirit of cooperation in discussion, because they had asserted opposition inclusion self-defense clause from very beginning. They believed self-defense clause should be deleted altogether from draft and not repositioned. Nevertheless would make further comment next meeting. He would listen anything else I had to say on other matters.

9. I said it now four months since any development whatsoever with regard return to US of Americans subject our Sept 10 announcement. There no longer seemed to be even a pretense by their authorities carry out that agreement. I had many times spoken here in all seriousness and earnestness of effect this having on public opinion in my country and on my government’s estimate of pledged word his government. I had pointed out before and wished again point out adverse effects their failure permit these Americans expeditiously return is having and effect it will continue have in future discussions here find solutions to problems between our two countries. Certainly release of only six individuals in these 7 long months that have passed since September 10 cannot be interpreted as permitting these people expeditiously to return to own country. This still continued contrast very much with situation concerning Chinese in US, who returning steadily to his country. According our best information, nine Chinese from US were known to have crossed border into his country March 16, seven more April 7, making total at least 130 definitely known to have returned since our talks began. How many more might have returned by other routes I had of course no way of knowing. However, what was undisputable was that Chinese were allowed to return and were returning whenever they wished to do so. For any those who had not returned, had been entirely their personal decision. I hoped in interest our talks here, with their potentialities for future relations between our two countries his authorities would correct the bad situation existing in spite our announcement September 10.

10. Wang said situation respecting return nationals each country directly related to improvement our relations. I had stated that since talks began 130 Chinese had returned to his country. Bearing in mind existence some 5,000 Chinese students in US, what proportion would the 130 Chinese who have returned make to this integral number?
Might point out, however, since talks began number American nationals in China having returned my country exceeds two-thirds total number. From these two proportions it is quite clear as to whether more Americans or more Chinese have returned to their countries since talks began. As such, from point of view September 10 agreement between us situation concerning nationals not satisfactory his side. Had already called my attention names 49 Chinese in US, however, I had not yet given accounting for any of them. At last meeting I had remarked information he gave me concerning case Yuan Jui-hsiang not sufficient find out about him and identify him. I seemed to have found some pretext by which I was refusing make inquiry and give accounting of all 49 Chinese who have been prevented returning.
They had provided such information as name, profession, and circumstances obstructions received. No one could ever believe country as large as US having such huge and extensive investigating setup as FBI cannot find and identify Mr. Yuan. Therefore, hoped my authorities would promptly correct treatment and attitude toward Chinese in US whose return being prevented, and give clear accounting all these persons. My authorities must not only keep an eye on American offenders in China who have been sentenced according to law and who now serving prison sentences in China, while altogether ignoring fact Chinese in US still being prevented from returning. Such an attitude this problem entirely not conducive progress our discussions. My authorities so far had not given slightest accounting Chinese in US prisons.

11. Wang said as regards medical records Mr. Kanady and Mrs. Bradshaw, he had told me his authorities would make inquiry about availability their medical records. Now informed me Chinese Red Cross had investigated. Medical records Kanady available and will be forwarded ARC through Chinese Red Cross. However, Mrs. Bradshaw had been receiving medical care on own outside prison; therefore, his authorities did not have medical record.

12. I said he had again spoken this morning of proportion between total number Chinese students in US and number who have returned to their country, and related this to proportion of number Americans in his country who had returned. He had related that to our Sept 10 announcement and stated situation not satisfactory his government. I had previously pointed out this type proportioning entirely false. Our agreed announcement did not say that if two-thirds of Americans in China returned to US, US then will force two-thirds of Chinese in America return his country. It did say all those who desire return will be permitted do so. It does not say one-half, two-thirds, or nine-tenths of those who desire return, it says all who desire return. Says not only they be permitted return, but return expeditiously as of Sept 10 last year. Test of performance therefore whether in fact in each country all who desire return permitted do so and no obstruction offered their return. We both knew that of Americans we talking about before and at time our agreed announcement, 13 still not returned. They indisputably people who desire return. We also knew prior to and at time issuance our announcement, his interest was with respect Chinese students in US. We both knew that up to time talks began some of those—very small number—were forbidden by my government return his country. Also knew that at time talks began, measures against these students entirely withdrawn, so that any of them who desire return can. In spite all statements made here and made publicly by his government, we both knew that third power arrangements, established at his request, confirm situation. Thus far in the more than 7 months passed there has not been brought to our attention a single case in which US has not fully carried out terms of agreed announcement. No amount of words or charges can obscure these facts.

13. Wang said references he had made to proportion people returning made only because in my earlier statement I had dwelt on number returnees. Of course, would not be necessary for us make references these proportions if Chinese in America were in fact not being obstructed from returning. However, he had repeatedly noted that Chinese in US had been subjected all sorts obstructions and this situation not changed even after our agreed announcement last September. Therefore, these proportions helped explain and demonstrate performance our respective sides regarding return our nationals and carrying out of agreement. Although at beginning our discussions they made references Chinese students in US, however agreement between us concerned nationals of both sides, and students only a portion of nationals who were subject to agreement. Those 49 whose names he had given me were persons who desire return but who have been unable do so. I had made repeated references to 13 American offenders serving prison sentences in China but had never given reply as to how many Chinese actually in prison in US. He still awaited reply from me this subject.

14. I said I cited number of Chinese known returning his country from US to show they are steadily returning and as evidence no obstructions being offered their return. If in fact there were obstructions offered Chinese living in US, then these people would not steadily be leaving. As I had pointed out, proportions those returned to those in either country has no relation whatsoever to carrying out our agreement. Question is one of fact—whether those desiring return are being obstructed from doing so. He had again said Chinese in US being subjected to “all sorts” of obstructions. There had not been slightest evidence here any kind of obstructions, nor had third power ever presented any evidence of obstructions. There had been no evidence any obstructions whatsoever of student or anyone else being prevented from returning. Those were facts not allegations.

15. Wang said they had called my attention cases 49 people who had not returned and such was precisely evidence of obstructions. If, however, after I made an investigation I could say poor people were free to return he would of course welcome such a statement. Would like remind me agreement calls for all nationals, and not just of nationals only facts could make a reasonable reply this regard.

16. I said that if he had nothing else I would like to suggest next Thursday as date our next meeting. Wang agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/4–1956. Confidential; Limit Distribution.