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

669. Telegram 2135 from Geneva¹

Geneva, June 28, 1956, 7 p.m.

2135. From Johnson.

1. Direct discourse report 52nd meeting follows:

2. Wang (prepared statement):
Last meeting you indicated desire make progress talks. Told you I welcomed indication. However since we began second item agenda month after another slipped away while thus far not able arrive agreement declaration because your side persists unjustifiable position. That unsatisfactory situation.

3. May 11 our side represents major effort meet your point view; therefore entirely acceptable. In spite clear words this draft you insist without basis asserting it contains ambiguities and constitutes retrogression, and you object stipulation time limit. Regret you persisted such unjustifiable attitude. If sincerity your side make declaration second item, should give up attempts freeze unjustifiable situation Taiwan area and intervene internal affairs my country. If desire your side settle disputes no reason object seeking ascertaining practical feasible means including Sino-American FMC within two months declaration. If you mave constructive opinions this regard ready hear.

4. I said: Seems me we still confronted same difference approach question second item. You still seem regard this from stand point making declaration for own sake is primary purpose. If that were purpose would be easy. We could make all kinds declarations, joint statements, which one us could interpret one way other. Other way could easily temporarily give surface appearance agreement. However, I regard issues problems between us too important handle such manner.

5. I: Been striving reach agreement fundamental proposition. Proposition which our view and view host countries world is first step and fundamental to peaceful settlement disputes. Do not want take time morning repeat review my point view, but think vital we keep these fundamentals mind.

6. I: Speaking very frankly would again like have you understand exactly how we view situation. You profess desire find peaceful solution problems between us including problems existing Taiwan area. Same time, before talks began and during talks, you been and your government continued enunciate policy using force resolve situation Taiwan area its satisfaction if other means not result solving to its satisfaction. Thus, however phrased or whatever words used express it, you asking my government agree negotiate under clear continued expression threat your government resort use force if necessary obtain desires. Should think possible your government appreciate this is condition and situation neither my nor other self-respecting government possibly accept in world today. World I hope progressed beyond that point.

7. I: My government seeks with you as elsewhere peaceful settlement disputes. Impossible in this, well as many other disputes, for frail human minds look into future determine exactly what means or what way particular disputes can be settled, not necessary we do so even not desirable. What necessary or even essential is we determined only use peaceful means. Once that determination made, may open peaceful settlement. My proposal October 8, my position since been we take this first, simple, fundamental step. You purpose still appears be attempt force US into negotiations under continued threat resort force unless negotiations entirely your satisfaction.

8. I: Far as attempts make progress resolving situation concerned, I made most earnest attempts do so. I welcomed your December 1 as it seemed step towards agreement. Although it quite different from what I had mind when made original proposals October 8, I was willing accept it as framework basis for negotiations order make progress. You yourself characterized that draft general statement principle renunciation force peaceful settlement disputes between us. That precisely what I took it be when you submitted. My only quarrel was it too general and subject misunderstanding. This gave rise two questions. First, was draft intended make it impossible my side defend self if attacked? Second, was this general statement applicable all disputes two countries including Taiwan area?

9. I: January 12 I put forward draft incorporating simple clear answers these questions. In response my January 12 you denied had any intention prejudicing position my side. You acknowledged of all disputes Taiwan area most important. You stated intended principle peaceful settlement disputes apply also Taiwan area. However rejected my simple amendments clearly embodying these points. You asked and again this morning whether it intention my side prejudice position your side which you claim inherently peaceful. To cover point I inserted clear amendment my April 19. Questions I thus asked about your December 1 might be phrased: whether intended prevent my side defending self if attacked? Did it not apply also Taiwan area? Was it intended prejudice right either side peaceful pursuit policies? These perfectly natural questions, directly applicable pertinent this first step renunciation force. Do not introduce extraneous ambiguous elements. Have tried be careful preserve area agreement your December 1 indicated already reached. However, if you any suggestions how answers can be expressed more effectively more acceptably to you I glad hear them. As previously explained, I not feel they answered by your May 11.

10. I: Have talked some length morning this subject not with desire engaging polemics, rather see whether some way two of us with heavy responsibility cannot reach greater measure understanding than we thus far succeeded. Seems me proposition I set forth in past and again morning so simple normal fundamental it must be accepted by anyone sincerely desiring peaceful settlement disputes. Wish you most earnestly consider what I have said because it been said all sincerity earnest desire see whether cannot reach agreement clearly unambiguously eliminating danger hostilities our two great peoples and open broad road genuinely [garble—resolve?] peaceful resolution differences.

11. Wang said: You spoken some length morning large collection views subjects you previously stated. Although you stated more than once you have sincerity in desire resolve problems, however, fail find any such sincerity from study speech as whole.

12. W: Issue confronting our countries clearly evidently case US armed occupation territory my country and US threat force against my country. However, you by sophistry trying turn situation into opposite and allege my country threaten yours. Issue is US armed occupation my country’s territory. However you reverse this and claim unreasonable right self defense as often stated in past.

13. W: In past I repeatedly enunciated position my side on peaceful settlement dispute Taiwan area: there exist 2 aspects Taiwan area. On one hand, international dispute between China US, which we now discussing and trying find solution. On other hand, problem Taiwan area essentially internal matter therefore allows no intervention foreign power. In your statement morning you again tried deliberately distort this position respect settlement international disputes two countries Taiwan area and our peaceful intentions.

14. W: You again mentioned morning relations between states. First para May 11 precisely sets forth normal [garble] principles regulating and establishing relations between states. However, US armed occupation our territory Taiwan not only matter Chinese people will not long tolerate but is a matter no sovereign state can tolerate. You stated will strive for resolution our disputes Taiwan area peaceful means. However, fact is your side continues try freeze present status Taiwan area, so your side can perpetrate occupation Taiwan. You mentioned morning your proposal October 8 and your April 19. All these proposals fully supported views I just stated. I cannot consider these indication sincerity resolution by peaceful means our disputes. That reason my repeated objections these unacceptable propositions. Thus US propositions cannot help resolve issues.

15. W: Purpose these talks precisely seek peaceful means settlement our disputes. Not purpose these talks engage empty discussion without settling any questions. I agree we not discussing making declaration for sake declaration. But my side cannot agree make declaration which would do nothing change present unjustified situation Taiwan area, but would instead perpetuate such situation. Declaration should set forth common desire settle issues. Declaration should advance peaceful resolution dispute Taiwan area. If both sides have common sincerity desire find peaceful resolution disputes believe we able make progress. Might frankly say my country has sincerity and peaceful intent. This intent demonstrated all drafts we presented. Hope US also same desire and demonstrate desire by action. In interest both our peoples for us make speedy progress arrive at agreement.

16. I said: Have just few short remarks. First, you persist in these talks and drafts in attempting get US accept your interpretation nature dispute Taiwan area. I carefully tried in draft and remarks avoid discussion nature origin our disputes in interest making progress. As have said many times, consider this premature and not germane immediate task. Only possible make progress, and understood you agree, if we take very complicated situation existing between two countries step by step. If we confuse steps can only hopelessly confuse, bog selves down. I always and still take view first step renunciation use force settlement disputes. You appear still take position that for your government renounce force respect dispute Taiwan area means your government agrees status quo and sacrifices position this dispute there.

17. I. However dispute regarded, this seems remarkable doctrine: doctrine of despair, pessimism. It in effect says some disputes not capable settlement peaceful means. If other governments in world adopted this doctrine outlook indeed bleak. However, at least most governments reject this doctrine. My government rejects doctrine there are disputes cannot be settled peaceful means. Given goodwill determination find settlements only peaceful means there no dispute not capable resolution peaceful means. All I asked and continue ask is you join me saying this unequivocally regard all disputes including Taiwan area.

18. Wang said: Cannot accept assertion May 11 contains what you call ambiguities. Don’t think assertion correct. Recall when I proposed December 1 you asserted draft ambiguous because didn’t insert Taiwan area. Then in May 11 draft inserted Taiwan area thus making principle peaceful settlement disputes specifically Taiwan area. You still say May 11 ambiguous. I can only regard this as deliberate distortion. My latest and previous drafts, all take account actual situation disputes two countries. No intent these drafts try resolve by single stroke all disputes. As intention these drafts adoption and agreement on declaration constitute first step solution disputes.

19. Wang: Abnormal situation Taiwan area urgently calls for settlement. However, our side has not slightest despair or pessimism with regard settlement. Our side firmly opposed present situation Taiwan area. However, always had faith this abnormal situation Taiwan area can of necessity be resolved.

20. Wang: You spoke great length settlement disputes peaceful means. It exactly policy my government pursue such means in resolution disputes between two countries. My government joined with others proclaiming well known Five Principles. If these Five Principles accepted by all countries am sure all disputes can be resolved. May 11 exactly proposition accomplishing basis peaceful settlement disputes countries. If your government genuinely desires settle international disputes peaceful means has no basis oppose May 11 and no ground object seeking ascertain practical feasible means settlement disputes including convocation FMC repeat FMC within two months announcement declaration. Decisions set forth my draft are in accord general principle peaceful resolution international disputes. Provisions set forth feasible practical. If one side professed desire settlement disputes peaceful means while refusing take peaceful feasible steps this direction, how can peaceful resolution be achieved.

21. I said: All want say still find it impossible understand why if your side really wants reach agreement it rejects areas agreement already reached and in your May 11 introduces new extraneous elements.
My April 19 preserved all your December 1.

22. Wang said: Although your April 19 retains some of text my previous draft, in substance your side not in any way changed position. That why I said could not accept it.

23. I said: Nothing further that subject, but like take up another matter. (From prepared statement) Continue be puzzled attitude you taken regard steps I informed you my government taking concerning alien Chinese prisoners. As informed you last meeting, further action awaiting reply Indian Embassy to our invitation to determine which prisoners desire return your country. We now received reply from Indian Embassy to effect your government has not agreed its interviewing.

24. I: Find this position your government now taken regard these persons utterly inexplicable and totally at variance positions you previously taking.

25. I: First, you previously insisting provisions agreed announcement be applied these common criminals. I have agreed this. As pointed out last meeting if provisions announcement to have any meaning respect these persons, it means that, same any other Chinese US, they can promptly proceed your country if so desire. Therefore, first question is do they desire return your country? This connection you previously asking for list such prisoners. Assumed your interest in such list could only be satisfy self such persons been informed announcement, whether they desired return your country and if so able do so. Such list has been given Indian Embassy. You been insisting Indian Embassy be permitted make check determine whether Chinese my country desire return. In order further meet point view you expressed this regard, we took initiative inviting Indian Embassy make such check with regard these prisoners though went beyond terms announcement. Just never occurred me you would subsequently reverse position and object our permitting Indian Embassy carry out with respect this group persons exactly what been requesting.

26. I: Can only assume your present objections to performance Indian Embassy this function with respect these prisoners means you reversing previous position respect applicability announcement these persons. If so this of course entirely your choice.

27. Wang said: Our position respect Chinese US including those in prison always very clear. Cannot accept allegation my side reversed previous position. Can only regard this allegation as unjustifiable entirely unsupported. We invited India act as third power taking care interests our nationals US including question their return. Indian Embassy requested your government give it complete list all Chinese US as my government did at very beginning these talks giving you list all Americans my country. Indian Embassy requested these lists facilitate performance functions. However, your government so far not given lists. We requested your government give us information and make accounting Chinese prisoners your country but never requested Indian Embassy question them. We do not agree Indian Embassy questioning these Chinese in prison, because they cannot fully express free will in prison.

28. Wang: I just cannot understand why if your government genuinely interested carrying out announcement, it not willing take initiative settling cases these imprisoned Chinese when set free not offering obstruction their return my country. This request my side cannot be called excessive because only requesting you do same as my country in cases American prisoners, taking initiative settle cases enabling return. Just cannot understand why if your government desires carry out announcement faithfully hasn’t given Indian Embassy complete list Chinese in US; why has not given any accounting 28 persons in list 103 not yet returned nor for 53 of 55 names given you who not returned, even list imprisoned Chinese you gave Indian Embassy not complete therefore unsatisfactory.

29. Wang: Again your government not taken steps remove Taiwan entry permit requirement well as so-called permanent resident requirement. In past we often made complaints this regard. If your government really willing facilitate Indian Embassy help Chinese returning my country why should it permit continuation situation I spoke of. Position my government always clear. We have full confidence Indian Embassy performing functions your country representing interest our nationals. Always concerned with interests every national US and desire see they can freely return without obstruction. Hope your government able give satisfactory reply all these questions I raised.

30. I said: Let me ask two questions. First with respect Chinese in prison. If understand correctly your position is if they desire return your country it is not your desire they be permitted promptly but rather they await completion sentences or normal procedures parole good behavior. That is they in exactly same position as before announcement issued. Next question is as you not agreeable Indian Embassy interviewing prisoners are you willing accept whatever prisoners may tell of regarding desire return.

31. I said: Glad note your affirmation full confidence Indian Embassy carrying out functions. Embassy never any respect indicated slightest dissatisfaction full cooperation my government consistently extended it in carrying out functions. Neither has Embassy brought our attention any case any obstruction whatsoever being offered departure any Chinese US desiring return. Considering tens thousands Chinese US and length time announcement in effect, think that truly remarkable record one in which my government can take much satisfaction.

32. Wang said: Our position with regard Chinese in prison and reason why object Indian Embassy questioning been given previously and again morning. Don’t think necessary repeat. Don’t think claim Indian Embassy has no dissatisfaction in carrying out functions tells whole story. Indian Embassy asked your government for list all Chinese US. Your government so far refused. This not demonstration willingness offer help Embassy. Calling this situation satisfactory at variance with fact.

33. I said: Suggest if agreeable Friday July 6. This exceptional in view July 4 national holiday have to be Prague. Wang said: Previous engagement Friday suggest Tuesday July 10. I agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/6–2856. Confidential; Limit Distribution.