Office of the Historian

604. Letter 42 from McConaughy to Johnson1

Letter No. 42
Washington, May 11, 1956
Dear Alex:
[Facsimile Page 1]

We went all out to meet your request to keep Dave Osborn. We took the matter to Mr. Carpenter in order to get it resolved [text not declassified].

[text not declassified]

We had the new Indian Minister Hareshwar Dayal in. He called on Mr. Sebald on May 8 for a discussion of the application of the Agreed Announcement. As you will see from the enclosed memo of conversation, the Indian Embassy is a little bit fussy on some aspects of the matter.

[text not declassified] informed me in confidence the other day that the Indian Charge in Peiping had told the [text not declassified] Charge there that the Indian Embassy here “assisted about 330 Chinese to return to China”. I do not know where he got the figure. There is no evidence here that the Indians have been in contact with any such movement of Chinese. They have undoubtedly assisted a few financially. They did not volunteer any information on this and we of course have not pressed them.

[Typeset Page 966] [Facsimile Page 2]

We will send you a report on the meeting of the representatives of the 16 countries which was held on May 9 with Bob Murphy on the Chinese Communist note. (See Circular 777 May 10) You will recall that we referred to this in our guidance telegram of May 9, No. 1967.

Your letter No. 31 dated May 3 was received on May 8, 1956.

I have asked Nagoski to check the unfortunate language of the Immigration people in reference to “applications for permission to depart”. He tells me that the Immigration Service confirms categorically that Chinese do not need “permission” to return and do not have to inform the Immigration Service when they leave the United States. However, some foreigners (and this not confined to Chinese) in the U.S. apparently do not realize this. They may feel that it is necessary, or at least the polite thing, to touch base with U.S. I&N.S. before leaving. Also, some of the prospective Chinese repatriates are under the illusion that the US I&N.S. can help them with tickets and travel reservations. Perhaps some of the U.S. I&N.S. field officers have not always made sufficiently plain to the inquirers that a positive response does not imply that the inquiry was necessary in the first place or that a negative answer could have been given. The one case in which the inquiry was referred from one office to another appears to have been an instance of pure bureaucratic timidity. We have asked I.&N.S. to reexamine its circular instructions to the field offices on this subject to make sure that it is sufficiently emphasized that Chinese need have no dealings with the Immigration Offices in their arrangements for departure.

I agree with your observation in your letter No. 30 about the deficiency in the case histories attached to the Lindbeck report. I have shown Lindbeck your comments and he is working on the matter. We will have some information on this shortly.

[text not declassified]

I hope there are no unpleasant surprises in the meeting tomorrow.

[text not declassified]

Regards and every good wish,

Sincerely,

Walter P. McConaughy

Enclosures:

1.
Copy of Memorandum dated May 9.
2.
Copy of Memo of Conversation with Indian Minister

  1. Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Confidential; Official–Informal.↩