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

630. Telegram 1964 from Geneva¹

Geneva, May 31, 1956, 6 p.m.

1964. From Johnson.

1. I opened 49th today with prepared statement:

A. Shall make remarks on second item brief as possible this morning as have some information give you concerning first item.

B. Do not, however, want to make so brief as to leave you in doubt as to my position regard our search for agreement on renunciation force at present stage discussions. My government considers this search task of fundamental importance, and for its part is determined make every effort find common ground for agreement on meaningful renunciation force. My country will continue seek this as essential first step toward peaceful resolution differences.

C. It because this attitude my government that, when you submitted last Dec 1, I did not reject it simply because it came from your side. On contrary, as you will recall, welcomed it as advance over your previous position. Felt it had possibility being made into acceptable form framework meaningful renunciation force. As told you at time, was concerned about certain ambiguities your Dec 1 draft. As indicated your Dec 1, your draft, because these ambiguities appeared capable meaning one thing one side another to other. As indicated you that time, there was danger you might be taking draft to mean US abandoning its position respect merits dispute Taiwan area. As also indicated, I felt relation of draft to Taiwan area was another point of ambiguity.

D. However, despite these dangers which, as noted at time seemed inherent your draft, I was most careful in suggesting revisions to avoid rejecting what was constructive in draft. Limited revisions to what thought was minimum necessary to remove ambiguities I had pointed out. You persisted rejecting my amendments, but for five months refused submit alternative suggestions. April 19, I again suggested certain minimum revisions designed meet your stated objections my January 12 amendments. Again, most careful preserve intact form and exact language your Dec 1 draft, limiting changes to necessary minimum.

E. Finally, on May 11, you came forward with new revision on your own. You have objected my terming your May 11 draft “retrogression”. Have not used this term hastily. Really do not see how it possible regard that draft as other than retrograde step. Let me make this entirely clear.

F. First, consider question in terms of drafts, of concrete documents. Stated at time, your December 1 draft constituted advance over previous position. Surely effort both us ought be preserve elements of advance in draft and concentrate solely on improving it. My successive efforts followed this principle, in true spirit reciprocity and desire for progress. Do not believe you can point to any respect in which my revision April 19 sacrificed any part your Dec 1 draft. Unfortunately, your draft May 11 does sacrifice much of earlier draft. Revisions which it suggests either depart completely from spirit reciprocity and mutuality, or limit validity of declaration, or introduce new and extraneous elements ambiguity. Even excludes those portions of your own Dec 1 draft I had accepted. Rather than moving direction of agreement, moves away from agreement.

G. Second, consider question in terms of relations between my country yours, and of situation Taiwan area. Does not set time limit—and short one, at that—on validity of proposed declaration automatically heighten [not] decrease, dangers of that situation? Does it not automatically raise question of what your side intends do at end two-month period? Your December 1 draft constituted apparent advance towards basis for agreement on meaningful renunciation force. That is, I felt and still feel if its ambiguities removed, as was done in my April 19 draft the Dec 1 draft could lead to removal dangers inherent in present situation in Taiwan area. It could thus open road toward genuine peaceful discussion and resolution differences. I felt and still feel this is direction which we should try move. Must insist your May 11 draft is step in opposite direction. Do not see how anyone could consider it as other than reversal of course, and hope you will understand my reluctance join you in backward step.

2. Wang replied (from notes and from prepared statement) he noted my statement this morning dealt general terms their previous drafts. Could not agree my assertion terming May 11 draft retrogression. It presented exactly because their previous draft Dec 1 been submitted for long time and did not achieve any result in discussions. View that situation they submitted new draft May 11. May 11 draft common points been included. In light expressed attitude US last few meetings in discussion May 11 draft, particularly in light my statement this morning as well as opposition to time limit in declaration it become quite clear my intention this discussion is try get declaration freezing status quo Taiwan area, then resort prolonged procrastination without following up with FMC in order maintain ability my country continue seizure Taiwan intervene China’s internal affairs. That position what their side would under no circumstances agree to.

3. Wang said as been repeatedly pointed out US already used force threat force in seizing China’s territory Taiwan intervening China’s liberation offshore islands. That fact which can no way be negated by resort sophistry.

4. Wang said I had made repeated statements calling for unconditional renunciation force Taiwan area. If so US should first of all remove own forces and threat force already used against China Taiwan area. China upheld peaceful settlement Sino-American disputes Taiwan area. However would never remain onlooker allowing US continue perpetuate seizure Taiwan interference China’s internal affairs.

5. Wang said any declaration renouncing use force China US Taiwan area must not under any circumstance be something freezing status quo Taiwan area. Must specify means by which Taiwan area dispute might be resolved. Their draft specified such practical feasible means should be sought ascertained within two months from announcement declaration. This proves sincerity their part for peaceful resolution disputes between us.

6. Wang said it now more than eight months since began discussions this second item. As result procrastination part US we still not able reach agreement. If US even lacked intention reaching agreement on means settling Sino-American dispute Taiwan area, to what year and to what month would I want drag on talks when we came to discussion substance disputes?

7. Wang said they always held provided there equal sincerity two months time should be entirely sufficient for two sides agree practical feasible means solution disputes Taiwan area.

8. I replied he had spoken of supposed US desire freeze status quo Taiwan area. Seemed me as sometimes said in English shoe on other foot. What was status quo Taiwan area? Status quo was there dispute regarding that area involving both us. One side for long in past and still is threatening use force resolve that dispute to its satisfaction.

9. I asked what was first step to peacefully resolve that dispute? First step was clearly say force would not be used in attempt solve it. Next step was peacefully and in that atmosphere discuss disputes. It eight long months ago I put forward this simple proposition. Might even say elementary proposition. Proposition designed verly clearly to change present status quo under which force being threatened and there danger hostilities long as it continued.

10. I said it not US but rather his country that apparently desired maintain status quo. It not US that prevented us from coming grips other substantive problems confronting us. It unwillingness his government thus far accept simple elementary proposition that prevented us thus far moving on any further these talks. I thought it important we keep clear on what actual situation was.

11. Wang said I had just now indicated desired present status quo Taiwan area not be maintained and something must be done about it. That exactly what they maintained. Status quo Taiwan area abnormal and false. That why something must be done change that situation. However, order change that status quo Taiwan area empty words not sufficient. One must show concrete deeds that direction. It exactly for this purpose settling disputes two countries Taiwan area we started discussions here. For eight months we not been able make progress this subject. This not to their satisfaction.

12. Wang said first step settlement Taiwan area dispute two countries lay in announcing declaration. However, I had failed give him any help that direction. In discussing subject making declaration must concentrate on how make progress in discussion. May 11 draft designed exactly for purpose advancing talks not producing deadlock or dragging talks backward.

13. Wang said he had repeatedly explained his draft. It contained three substantive paras. First para they proposed two countries accord mutual respect sovereignty territorial integrity each other. That would be normal fundamental principle on which relations two countries could be established; he could not imagine any other principle departing from this principle on which relations could be established. He could not imagine how this principle mutual respect could be replaced by mutual disdain and hostility.

14. Wang said second para proposed peaceful resolution Taiwan area dispute two countries. That para reasonable and expressed their peaceful intentions in that they determined try settle disputes peacefully without going war.

15. Wang said next about time limit in declaration. This expressed mutual determination seek means settlement disputes. Fact that no agreement been achieved eight long months in Sino-American negotiations had exerted unfavorable influence international opinion. Public says two us meeting for sake meeting, and do not have desire settle concrete problem. On their part they dissatisfied with delay. If we set two months time limit would help greatly our endeavors for settlement. That in interests both sides.

16. Wang said in discussion declaration should not and cannot try depart from these things. Issue could not be settled by making empty charges such allegation their draft retrogression. I alleged their May 11 constituted step backwards. Told me would appreciate if I could enlighten him in what points their draft made what I termed retrogression.

17. I said Wang had characterized his May 11 draft, in reference its second para as expression intention on part two us try settle disputes peacefully without going war. I inclined agree that characterization his draft. I felt this pointed up really fundamental difference between us. Would declaration we discussing be merely pious ambiguous expression of desire try repeat try settle disputes peacefully without going war? Or would it be declaration saying we would not go war over disputes but would discuss them and seek settlement only by peaceful means? It in this regard in particular I must consider his May 11 draft as retrogression from Dec 1 draft.

18. Wang interjected it seemed we better keep discussion in terms exact text draft. Their draft in this para said two countries determined should settle disputes between two countries Taiwan area peaceful negotiation without resorting threat use force against each other. We better keep strictly to text draft. What he wanted discuss was exactly text draft.

19. I told Wang I still felt taken as whole effect of May 11 draft was as I had said. As I had said this morning taking last para his May 11 in relation whole it even introduced element of threat at end period mentioned therein. However it explained or rationalized that simply inherent in language it used. I had pointed out also in that para he had dropped language on which we previously agreed. I had accepted his language exactly as expressed in his draft Dec 1 for that last para. By now dropping language on which agreement already reached certainly had gone backwards.

20. Wang said we would both recall prior agreement first announcement we both worked earnestly in terms language of announcement. As result our efforts we finally reached agreement precise text announcement.

21. Wang said he had asked me this morning point out exactly which places in three paras his draft constituted retrogression. However I had first mentioned second para. He could hardly follow logic that respect. I would recall their previous draft Dec 1 in which second para. said PRC and USA determined should settle disputes two countries through peaceful negotiation without resorting threat use force. That was statement in general terms regarding settlement disputes two countries. As they understood public statements made by US Department State we desired specific mention Taiwan area this para. In meeting I had repeatedly advanced point of including Taiwan this para. Their May 11 did include reference Taiwan area. Therefore it met requirements US. That why it hard for him understand how such inclusion constituted retrogression. He must say he not able follow me this respect. My position seemed be in their previous drafts they did not have reference Taiwan area second para and that not satisfactory me. Now in second para they added reference yet I said this retrogression. Could this be regarded as demonstation sincerity in talks?

22. Wang said I had next spoken about third paragraph and about time limit. They maintained time limit essential necessary and useful both sides. For several meetings in succession I had expressed different opinions on time limit. I had done so in spite repeated explanations. If I considered two months insufficient then how much time would be sufficient? He would like hear my ideas that regard period.

23. I said had just two brief things. First in discussing first agreement last September we did not make progress by dropping from declaration mid-way during negotiations, language on which had already reached agreement. Parenthetically I might note in spite care I attempted exercise discussing that agreement we came out with something which did not mean same thing both us. Issues here too important for that again happen.

24. I said next far as his question concerning time limit did not feel any time limit could be placed on renunciation force settlement our disputes. We certainly would not say we agreed not go war each other two months two years twenty years. It worse say that really than say nothing at all.

25. Wang said he found me in self-contradiction with previous statement this morning. This morning I said did not desire maintain status quo Taiwan area and desired present situation Taiwan area be changed. By omitting time limit did I feel present status quo Taiwan area should be maintained two years twenty years? If one should view Taiwan problem from that standpoint it would show he not willing have settlement at all. If I thought he mistaken in that he hoped I would clear it up for him.

26. I thought I had already made position amply clear on that. He had twisted my clear statement into arguing something I did not say. However I was satisfied my position clear. Had nothing further on this this morning. As told him at beginning meeting had information for him in regard first item which would take little time present and if it agreeable him would now do so.

27. Wang said although I had said my position clear they still not clear regarding it. He regretted I had in my statement not helped progress our discussion on declaration. If there no desire for deliberate stalling talks and if there genuine desire for reaching agreement would hope I able at next meeting put forward concrete opinions. Rather than saying abstract things would hope I able express concrete opinion.

28. He [I] then read prepared statement:

A. Since last December you with increasing frequency brought matter Chinese in prisons my country. At 47th meeting May 17 even asserted my government had under agreed announcement September 10 undertaken commitments this regard.

B. While not my purpose again enter controversy this matter, you well recall from time two years ago when two us undertook discussion respective nationals in country of other I indicated from my standpoint this involving question all Americans your country prevented departing by denial exit permits or imprisonment. So there be no question concerning exactly what discussing, I gave you list their names. You indicated interest was in question removal restrictions imposed by government on departure Chinese students. Your request I gave concrete information this regard. Were of course, no Chinese my country in category corresponding Americans your country imprisoned charges political nature.

C. These continued be respective concerns and subjects discussion throughout period contact through consulates general here well as through negotiations from August 1 leading agreed announcement September 10 which issued this context. Clearly understood between us and I made abundantly clear insofar my statement that announcement concerned, it confirmed fact, which I informed you outset our talks August, as of that time removal completed all restrictions on departure for your country Chinese my country.

D. That my country fully faithfully carried out with regard Chinese in US all terms agreed announcement demonstrated beyond doubt not only by fact Chinese continued freely proceed from US your country but also by fact in almost nine months since agreed announcement Indian Embassy has not brought attention my government single case where even alleged obstruction been offered to departure Chinese who desire proceed your country.

E. Nevertheless you in recent months raised question Chinese my country serving prison sentences. Your obvious purpose been falsely impugn faith performance my country all commitments under agreed announcement. Despite demonstrable falsity impression you seek create, my country’s authorities, view your statements this regard, carried out full careful investigation identify alien Chinese who might be serving prison terms. This investigation included all federal and state prisons. Necessary because no Chinese imprisoned my country on charges political nature or because race, nationality, political beliefs. He subject to imprisonment for common crimes as murder narcotics traffic only after prompt, fair public trial before impartial courts where has same legal safeguards as every other resident my country including counsel of own choice. Those convicted under such procedures not singled out by reasons race nationality, nor records concerning them maintained that basis.

F. As far as I able determine no alien Chinese in prison my country has expressed desire return your country. However, in order remove any vestige basis your claim my government not fully carrying out agreed announcement, each these prisoners being individually informed agreed announcement and specifically told if desires do so may apply for deportation your country. Prompt action will be taken any such application.

G. In addition, Indian Embassy my country being informed arrangements being made its representatives interview each such common criminal so can ascertain to its satisfaction whether not he desires be released for immediate return your country. Indian Embassy will be given names and location all such criminals. Indian Embassy today also being informed these measures.

29. Wang said he could not agree remarks concerning Chinese nationals US. Nor could he agree my assertion September 10 agreement did not include Chinese US prisons. He did not deny in beginning our contact on return civilians they first raised question Chinese students US. That time, Chinese students had suffered extremely unreasonable restrictions in US. However during last negotiations on return civilians beginning last August until we reached agreement on September 10 they never on their part stated that problems Chinese civilians only restricted Chinese students. Chinese students only portion Chinese nationals US. Same as in case US lawbreakers in China which included military personnel as well as civilians other categories.

30. Turning to prepared statement Wang continued he recalled I made statement during previous discussion to effect I did not know of any Chinese in prison US. I now formally informed him there were Chinese prisoners US.

31. Wang said he had also noted statement by spokesman US Department State to effect Chinese imprisoned US not going to be released. He must say this very serious question.

32. Wang said since I informed him I had made investigation Chinese in US prisons he would appreciate my telling him exact number such prisoners. Hoped I would be able give him list. These Chinese nationals imprisoned in US. That was fact. Fact was they subjected unequal treatment in US and being persecuted under various charges. Wang had right demand US release these people so they could return native land. They quite dissatisfied since agreement reached on civilians US so far not fully carried out agreement. He had made many representations concerning Chinese and Chinese students who being obstructed but, except in case Liu Yung-ming I not made any accounting these people.

33. Wang said US not yet removed requirements coercing Chinese US apply permanent residence and entry permits Taiwan.

34. Wang said according their information US recently taken measures deny exit children born Chinese students in US to depart with parents. That constituted violation agreement on civilians. They demanded US promptly remove such measures in violation agreement.

35. I said I did not know whether he clearly understood exactly what I told him. His remarks appeared indicate he did not. I had said far as I been able determine no Chinese prisoner thus far expressed desire return his country. I said however that it going be made specifically clear each them that if he desired do so he could apply deportation Wang’s country.

36. I said I did not even ask him accept my word on this. Arrangements made Indian Embassy see each these persons determine for self whether desired be released for immediate return. I had also told Wang Indian Embassy would be given names and locations each these persons.

37. I said as far as numbers concerned did not have exact figures which being given Indian Embassy but understood in neighborhood 30–40 persons who involved.

38. I said purpose this morning not enter controversy over ground covered many times in past but I found difficult accept his statement Chinese US who committed murder other common crimes being persecuted because put in prison for it.

39. I said only new thing Wang had mentioned was assertion children born US to Chinese student parents being denied exit. Could categorically tell him this not correct. Though such children American citizens they being permitted accompany parents. Because they American citizens procedures for departure somewhat different from case aliens and might in some cases require short period time. However even though they American citizens they being permitted accompany parents.

40. Wang said first place he might say number given by me for Chinese in prison US—I had said 30–40—quite big number. Essential question re these people was for US Govt release them so could return their homeland soon as possible. Regarding Chinese that category who in prison US he hoped I able give him list.

41. Wang said as regards children born to Chinese parents it case of obstruction departure. I had just now stated they not obstructed, but same time stated they received different treatment in regard departure from that accorded parents. That precisely case of obstruction for it quite apparent if children subject obstruction would also hinder departure parents. He hoped prompt action would be taken by US authorities correct that situation.

42. I said had nothing more. Wang proposed next meeting Friday June 8. I agreed.

Shillock

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/5–3156. Confidential; Limit Distribution.