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

650. Telegram 2023 from Geneva¹

Geneva, June 8, 1956, 8 p.m.

2023. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 50th with short handwritten prepared statement: With view pushing talks forward he had at last meeting patiently, repeatedly explained reasonableness their May 11. That draft provided for seeking, ascertaining practical feasible means in 2 months of announcement declaration thus showing sincerity desire settlement disputes. It entirely acceptable both sides and he did not feel it necessary again go over ground already covered so many times.

2. Wang said at last meeting he asked me this morning put forward concrete constructive opinions on their May 11. Hollow expressions or ulterior designs would never help us settle problems. He now ready listen my concrete opinions this regard.

3. Turning to typescript statement Wang continued next would like deal with question under first item agenda. He glad learn US had indicated to Indian Embassy it would not offer obstruction departure children born Chinese students accompanying parents.

4. Wang also glad learn US Government given Indian Embassy list names Chinese imprisoned US. However, would like note their side at very outset talks had given me list comprising names all Americans China including prisoners, whereas we thus far failed give them list Chinese US. My government had long delayed giving accounting this matter even after Indian Embassy made representations, and it not until June 1 this year that what we claimed was list all known alien Chinese prisoners US was handed over. He must express his regret over this.

5. Wang said I had indicated last meeting this list only covered 30–40 persons. This figure by far smaller than number Chinese known be in prison US. Must also emphatically state thus far US not yet given complete list all Chinese US. They therefore highly dissatisfied.

6. Wang said they also could [not] agree my unreasonably characterizing Chinese prisoners my country as criminals and Americans imprisoned his country as political prisoners.

7. Wang said last meeting I indicated my government would permit representatives Indian Embassy interview each Chinese prisoner determine whether he desired return. Must frankly tell me this move nothing other than attempt “screen” Chinese prisoners US. Must tell me could not agree this. Apparently US intended use entirely impermissible means such as screening few selected cases of Chinese prisoners in order cover up obstruction offered to return large numbers Chinese.

8. Wang said question return Chinese prisoners my country could only arise after US undertaken appropriate measures let them out of prison. As to question whether they desired return, after they released should be left decide this selves. If my side had real intention abiding by terms agreed annnouncement, should undertake such measures, similar what PRC already re Americans, done to settle cases Chinese prisoners my country, then refrain from obstructing their return, once they out of prison.

9. Wang said finally he must remind me US thus far failed account persons named lists he given me past meetings, nor had US removed such obstructive measures as entry permit Taiwan requirement designed prevent return Chinese.

10. Wang again urged US give accounting without further delay. Had here this morning list five Chinese prevented from returning and requested me look into cases well as all previous cases and give accounting.

11. I replied did not know whether I understood his statement correctly regarding prisoners. It my understanding purport his statement was that under agreed announcement there obligation each side let each person in prison out of prison regardless reason his being there. Then once they out prison they free decide whether or not they desire return respective countries, and this what PRC already done. Without expressing opinion at moment would appreciate his enlarging on that. Did he mean all Americans imprisoned his country now been released and now free decide whether they want return?

12. Wang was sure made self quite clear. Had dealt in his statement with question I raised. Had said he glad learn my govt had handed Indian Emb list names Chinese imprisoned my country. Had pointed out this list only covered portion Chinese residing US. Whereas what they requested was complete list all Chinese residing my country. My side long delayed without replying this request.

13. Wang said he had declared even list handed Indian Emb appeared unsatisfactory because number Chinese known their side be imprisoned US far exceeded figure given them that list.

14. Wang said they could not agree this move my govt of asking Indian Emb interview these few Chinese. This move nothing but “screening” Chinese US prisons. What they asking my govt do was take necessary measures regard these Chinese in prison so as let them free again. Once these prisoners been restored freedom US Govt should not offer further obstructions their return. What they ask of US Govt similar what his govt already done respect Americans China. Their side had carried out individual review cases Americans and adopted lenient policies and released numbers these prisoners in advance fulfillment sentences. He sure what they had done well known me.

15. I said as understood his position it was that US should release all Chinese US prisons regardless crime committed and regardless whether not they desired return. Was that correct?

16. Wang said had made point quite clear opening statement. What they asked was for my govt review cases Chinese prisoners just as his govt done in past and for my govt take appropriate measures settle cases. That what his govt did respect Americans. As to return these Chinese prisoners once they out prison it matter for prisoners selves determine. They asked US not offer obstruction their return.

17. I asked was he objecting to measures outlined to him last meeting to permit these people return.

18. Wang said he could not accept measures my govt in asking representatives Indian Emb interview these people.

19. I was utterly unable fol him. He was one who first suggested third party arrangement and suggested Govt India act that capacity in US. We had gone beyond requirement under agreed announcement. Sole question under terms reference on which we first met here and also under agreed announcement was whether any these people desired return his country. We had gone beyond anything required in agreed announcement to permit third party suggested by him to determine its satisfaction whether not any these people did desire return. Never occurred me he would object third party doing more than required agreed announcement, particularly light our previous discussions.

20. Wang said no question arose regarding capacity Indian Embassy represent interests their nationals US on behalf his govt. Now problem this portion Chinese nationals US was that they had lost freedom. Question of return these people depended first place on what measures US going take that regard. Their side did not advance excessive demands. They only asked my govt do similarly what his govt already done. I well knew because of measures undertaken his govt many formerly imprisoned American criminals had their cases reviewed and settled. After cases been settled they released in advance and already returned US. What asked of US Govt exactly same.

21. I utterly failed fol this. What I informed him last time was that any Chinese in prison who desired return Wang’s country would promptly be enabled regardless length sentence, or crime committed. I took it what he now asking was we not do this.
He asking US take measures similar what they already done. Did he want US permit some Chinese go and continue hold others?

22. Wang said of course their side concerned with interests every national their country. That why he repeatedly requested US furnish him complete list Chinese nationals my country. They also asked that if any Chinese national my country desired return PRC be allowed do so without obstruction. As to question of return Chinese now prison my country it essentially matter for US undertake on own initiative measures to settle their cases. If US Govt does not take initiative settling cases how can they come out prison and return.

23. I said any prisoner who desires return will promptly be enabled do so.

24. Wang said that depended measures taken US Govt in reviewing cases. They would welcome my govt’s adoption such measures.

25. I said essence his position seemed be he objecting our going beyond terms agreed announcement and what required of US under agreed announcement. Seemed me ridiculous position and never occurred me he would adopt such position this matter.

26. Wang could not accept that. Return nationals depended on concrete acts. He gave me names more than 50 Chinese including morning’s list. These people all desired return prevented doing so. As to prisoners, if my govt not willing settle their cases and only made empty statement when they desired return they could do so, such statement completely hollow. If my govt would undertake measures settle cases restore freedom these people so they able return his country of course would welcome.

27. I said in other words he was without ref to whether not any individual desired return attempting dictate my govt steps it should take re all alien Chinese criminals my country.

28. Wang said these people residing US under control my govt. If I only stated we would permit them go home but at same time would not take actual measures, he not prepared believe it. He asked me whether my govt prepared remove obstructive measures to return Chinese such as entry permit Taiwan requirement, and whether my govt willing undertake measures settle cases Chinese prisoners.

29. I asked Wang if he prepared believe representatives Indian Govt as to whether or not any individual imprisoned my country desired return.

30. Wang complained I had not yet replied his questions.

31. I said there two pertinent facts re carrying out agreed announcement. First was whether not person desired return. Second was whether not he prevented returning. Both counts facts re US performance spoke for selves. Facts re Americans PRC also spoke for selves. There never been any question but that Americans whose name I gave him at outset talks desired return. There never been any question they not been permitted return expeditiously as promised in agreed announcement, by whatever name this called or however it rationalized. Far as Chinese US concerned, never been any facts to contradict my categorical statements they free return. Not single case any specific complaint any specific obstruction been brought our attention by Indian Embassy.

32. I said Chinese steadily returning freely his country. According best info I had, at least 160 had returned since Aug 1. There not been any evidence thus far any of criminals desired return. They not included original discussions here and I did not consider they covered agreed announcement. Nevertheless we gone beyond its terms. Even permitting third party suggested by him see them in order determine whether not they desire return. If did desire prompt action would be taken permit them do so.

33. I was sure he would realize there no possible basis for objections he made or his demands on my govt. World would be able readily recognize who—not only in past but future—carried out agreed announcement and even went beyond provisions. If it his desire my govt withdraw measures outlined him regarding Chinese prisoners going beyond terms agreed announcement, would appreciate his clearly saying.

34. Wang could not agree my contention imprisoned Chinese not covered agreed announcement. To engage empty talk without taking concrete measures not only failed go beyond terms agreed announcement but was actually failure carry out terms.

35. Wang said up to present they not received complete list Chinese residents US and had no means verify whether Chinese in question desired return. He asked whether US prepared give list. There were number of persons they knew definitely desired return but because obstruction my govt not able do so, so far there still 34 persons on list I handed him previously who not yet returned. In addition there further 53 persons whose names given me previous meetings including morning’s who they knew definitely desired return but unable do so. They requested me conduct inquiry this regard and give them accounting. They awaited concrete act my govt re these people and Wang would like know if my govt prepared take any.

36. Wang said requirements for Chinese residents US obtain entry permit Taiwan violation agreement. They had repeatedly requested withdrawal, but requirement still remained and still prevented Chinese US exercising right return his country. He would like know whether US Govt prepared remove this obstruction. As to Chinese prisoners, prior any measures undertaken settle their cases how could anyone talk about freedom return his country?

37. Wang said I had just asked whether these people desired return and whether they prevented. These persons exactly such cases in which they desired return and prevented. Simply stating that if these persons desired return they able do so would not actually enable them return.

38. I said he had spoken of verification. Steps I outlined to him regard prisoners would enable independent verification by third party as to whether person desired return. If I understood his statement morning correctly he objecting that verification.

39. Wang said if my intent to carry out so-called screening these people, they would strongly object. That action would not be demonstration sincerity in settlement question. If my govt had sincerity why not take concrete steps?

40. I asked what further measures could possibly be taken than, it they desired go home, permitting them.

41. Wang said that hollow remark. If his govt had adopted such measures he believed Americans formerly imprisoned China would still be there. In settling cases Americans his govt did not engage hollow talk but took concrete measures. Would like ask whether my govt prepared take initiative adopt concrete measures re Chinese prisoners.

42. I asked if I understood him rightly then was his govt prepared promptly free all Americans now prisons?

43. Wang complained I had not yet answered his questions. Before they answered he did not think it necessary delve further that question. He still awaited my concrete opinions re second item agenda.

44. I said he and I had had long discussions about whole question respective nationals over long period time. I had always done best understand and respect his point view. Must confess morning I found it impossible. He raised entire question Chinese imprisoned US many times recent months. Now I had told him of steps to permit prisoners promptly return if desire do so regardless length sentence, seriousness crimes. I had with great deal effort and difficulty gone far beyond anything in discussions leading up agreed announcement. Now he appeared—not only appeared, did object my having done so. Found his position utterly inexplicable.

45. Wang said it quite right they always been concerned about Chinese imprisoned US and they still concerned. He had stated he glad learn my govt now given Indian Embassy list persons imprisoned. Had however pointed out they not satisfied with list because did not tally with information they had. Essential concern their side was what concrete measure US going take settle cases prisoners. If US would not undertake measures settle cases, to say when they desire return could do so would not settle question. This was all he had on this question morning.

46. I took it that he willing have US determine without verification by Indians whether these persons desired return or not.

47. Wang said it not question of desire to return it matter for my govt to settle cases.

48. I said question was whether they desired return. If not it not proper question for us discuss here.

49. Wang said without settling cases how could one say whether they desired return or not. Hard for persons in prison express free will. Question whether they desire return could only arise after cases been settled.

50. I asked how he reconciled that with at least several cases of Americans that been released or sentenced his country on understanding they be immediately deported. I referred cases Americans in which sentence been immediate deportation.

51. Wang did not understand.

52. I explained that as I understood his position all Chinese prisoners US should be released from prison then they could express desire as to whether not they desired return. Question I asking was how he reconciled this with fact at least many Americans who left his country did so under circumstances of being sentenced immediate deportation.

53. Wang said had already dealt at length with policies his govt and ways it settled cases Americans prisoned China. Essential thing was they given lenient treatment taking into consideration behavior gravity offenses. Lenient policy his govt shown by fact many American prisoners released advance their sentences. As result lenient policy large number former American prisoners regained freedom.

54. Wang said they did not ask anything else from us. Only asked we adopt similar measures to those his govt re American prisoners. If US did that they would be satisfied.

55. Wang said we had discussed this problem much morning and I had not yet answered questions he put. Did not think necessary US stall more morning.

56. I said as I understood his outstanding questions they were: First whether US prepared give list all tens thousands Chinese US. Next question as I understood was whether US prepared rescind requirement that alien in US on temporary visit who desires extend stay must present evidence can proceed another country at end stay. That in effect was question posed by what he called Taiwan entry permit question. Next question was whether US prepared free all alien Chinese serving prison terms for crimes.
Was I correct that these were questions?

57. Wang said there also question concerning persons whose names given me desiring return but unable.

58. I said re first question on list Chinese US we previously discussed at length. Answer no. Had previously outlined reasons to him. Re second question on requirements our immigration laws for persons desiring remain US, answer no. Had no relation whatever to those desiring return. Did not prevent them now or in future from returning his country unless he chose so make it. As far as names persons he given me, told him in past and have continued tell him they free return whenever desire. Far as prisoners concerned, answer no. US not prepared free alien prisoners if they to remain in US, except in accordance existing US procedures. If they desired return, answer is yes, they would promptly be able.

59. Wang was dissatisfied with answers I had given. Would not help in settlement question return nationals. In fact it preventing and obstructing return Chinese nationals. Therefore not in conformity spirit agreed announcement. He therefore reserved right further comment this question next meeting. Re question declaration had already made self clear last meeting and today and now prepared listen my concrete opinions.

60. I replied in opening statement he had made two statements with one which I could not agree and one with which did. First statement with which could not agree was his May 11 acceptable both sides. Second statement with which agreed was hollow expressions ulterior designs would not help settle problems we faced. I had at previous meetings outlined exactly reasons I felt his May 11 even more filled with hollow expressions than his previous drafts. It not meaningful renunciation force we been seeking. Draft as whole went against very purpose renunciation force. What draft did was intensify very threat we should be trying remove. Changing word here or comma there not going change that fact. I perfectly ready as always consider any suggestion that led toward declaration constituting really meaningful renunciation force. I not ready consider suggestions leading opposite direction. Found it hard reconcile his May 11th with desire expressed reach agreement declaration.

61. I said way realize desire for agreement was build on basis agreement already reached until we achieved something fully satisfactory both. Way to agreement not throw out what already agreed on substitute language which self raises new questions. Whereas I been careful in my suggestions to preserve area agreement avoid raising new controversial questions and endeavored respect principal reciprocity, could not consider his May 11 did so.

62. I pointed out setting time limit May 11 draft not only carried clear implication threat his govt intended use force at end two month period, also appeared place arbitrary time limit efforts two us here find resolutions problems confronting us. My govt had not did not propose approach question confronting us this spirit. Did not feel time limitations should be placed either on period country says will not resort war nor on period peaceful settlement disputes will be sought. His Dec 1 appeared affirm principle renunciation force peaceful settlement disputes without initiating it by time limitations. That one of aspects his Dec 11 welcomed and been careful preserve in each of revisions I offered.

63. I said did not think we discharged duties here or contributed to reaching agreement by making threats, deliberately throwing away agreements already reached. Thought way discharge duty own people—his well as mine—and world was work constructively preserving enlarging area agreement already established. This what I attempted do in my April 19. This what l still determined do if he would give me even slightest cooperation.

64. Wang expressed disappointment my statement. Every time he came meeting hoped achieve rapprochement our positions and succeed in reaching agreement. He regretted my statement did not lead rapprochement.

65. Wang said his statement that May 11 draft acceptable both made on basis assumption both shared desire reach agreement. As he repeatedly explained time limit advantageous both sides. Without time limit would imply deliberate intent drag out talks without settling disputes.

66. Wang said as he had told me many times country which threatened was US which threatening his country. They would not allow problem between two countries last forever without arriving settlement. Would not accept anything resulting freezing status quo Taiwan area.

67. Wang said I had again mentioned my April 19. As he had stated so often it entirely unacceptable. By again mentioning my April 19 I showed lack respect points view both sides and lack sincerity in discussions.

68. Wang agreed with my ref to discharging duties toward people of world. They, including people my country his country did not desire see talks dragging out without achieving settlement. Therefore felt obligation to make public statement so world people able judge matter.

69. I said he had found my April 19 entirely unacceptable. Did he find last para that draft now unacceptable?

70. Wang said I would recall his having stated previously if it desired mention Taiwan area second para must also mention holding FMC third para as well as time limit.

71. I asked did second para his Dec. 1, then, not apply Taiwan area?

72. Wang said must not take single para, must look at integral draft as whole.

73. I said if it Wang’s desire make public statement that of course his choice. Could not but regret such decision. However entirely satisfied public readily able judge who been doing maximum preserve area agreement already reached and expedite reaching understanding on meaningful declaration and who has dropped areas agreement already reached and introduced new extraneous controversial elements. I thought comparison two drafts would enable public readily judge who willing unambiguously renounce war settlement differences and who thus far not.

74. Wang said public would be able judge who desired settle questions, reach agreement declaration and who offering obstruction.

75. Saying had nothing more I proposed next meeting Saturday June 16. Wang proposed instead next meeting be Thursday June 21 for administrative reasons. I agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/6–856. Confidential; Limit Distribution.