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

686. Telegram 75 from Geneva¹

Geneva, July 26, 1956, 11 p.m.

75. From Johnson.

1. After Wang refused my invitation to open I opened the meeting with prepared statement:

A. At our last meeting and several previous meetings you have been making reference to what you term attempt of US in discussing question arriving at agreement on renunciation force to take prejudiced viewpoint and obtain one-sided advantage. Frankly, when I proposed last October that two us issue declaration announcing use force, I did so because of conviction my government it would be advantageous to us if we could create atmosphere in which our two countries could resolve their differences without resorting force. I say this quite frankly and openly, because I feel there is nothing wrong or shameful in my having made this proposition. It is my responsibility as representative my country, seek promote advantage of US. That does not mean I seek promote disadvantage other countries. I assume you feel same way about seeking advance interests your country.

B. In making my proposal last October it was not my intent, or intent my government, seek unfair or one-sided advantage. It was not—and is not—my feeling that meaningful renunciation force in settlement our disputes would be adverse to real interests your country. In fact it my conviction this would be genuinely also to advantage your country as well. It my belief that resort of force over any our disputes would in long run injure real interests your country as well as mine. I am well aware of position your country with respect our dispute in Taiwan area. I am also well aware of reluctance on part your country’s authorities abandon what they consider “right” use force if they choose do so. It is not my purpose to enter into philosophical argument over abstract question whether such “right” can exist nor to argue concept rights consistency with what has become a generally accepted principle modern international conduct. It been my hope your government would come to realization that just as practical matter of its own self-interest, interest of its people, and interest of rest of world, it ought to accept principle of renunciation force.

C. I continue hope your government will eventually accept this principle. Matter boils down to this: does your government still consider it is entitled to use force in respect our dispute Taiwan area? Does it still reject unqualified renunciation use force?

D. To state question in terms concrete content our discussions over last half year, was December 1 draft your side really intended as general statement of principle fully accepted by your side? If so, how can your government insist on withholding application of principle from very area where need for it is greatest? Or how can your government haggle and bargain over its application to that area, establishing preconditions and setting time limits?

E. If your governments principle which appears be stated in draft December 1, how can it object to clarification this statement on principle? Surely it obvious my country could not accept declaration which prejudiced its right self-defense. Surely your own government would not want prejudice its own right this regard. What possible objection can there be to making this clear in declaration itself.

F. I wish to record my most earnest hope your government will accept principle of renunciation force without qualification, and it will be possible for two us, on basis of area of agreement already reached, to go on to issuance of declaration clearly and unequivocally embodying that principle.

2. Wang, speaking from prepared statement, said would soon be one year since began talks. Most urgent, important task talk his achievement relaxation and eliminations tension Taiwan area, whereby fundamental adjustment abnormal relations existing between China and U.S. might be brought about and cause peace in Far East and world may be benefited. It in this spirit their side been conducting negotiations with our side on making renunciation force declaration.

3. Continuing from notes taken during my statement Wang said at outset these discussions their side hoped we be able resolve question relaxing and eliminating tension Taiwan area by peaceful means. However, such peaceful settlement must be in conformity generally accepted international principles and also in conformity fundamental interests of sovereign states. Central issue between two countries which requires resolution is that of Taiwan area dispute. Taiwan is territory of China. Chinese people can in no circumstances renounce right sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan within framework Chinese territory therefore Chinese people never permit any foreign country interfere in this question. Exercise of sovereign rights over Taiwan by Chinese Government is exactly in conformity with generally accepted principle international conduct.

4. Wang said I had stated in discussing question dispute Taiwan area, US would not prejudice right self-defense that area. He could only say these remarks aggressive. This US position precisely what their side consistently, firmly rejected in talks. If one country tried impose right self-defense on territory other country, could this be called observance generally accepted principle international conduct? His government always respected rights interests every other country, in return requested all other countries respect their soverignty rights as well.

5. Wang said I had stated this morning it my responsibility advance interest US, however, in doing so US must not violate, infringe on rights his country. Chinese people firmly oppose conduct talks which while promoting US interest prejudiced interests his country. Discussion on peaceful settlement disputes between two countries can never and must not be conducted in manner whereby US advancing own interests at expense interest of his country.

6. Returning to prepared statement Wang said I had again made repeated reference to making declaration renounce force. He would say it precisely because desire his side issue fair, just, equal declaration with US on renunciation force that in discussions his side repeatedly made great efforts and more than once offered drafts meeting views both sides, particularly one proposed May 11. No reason why both sides could not entirely reach agreement that draft. However, my side at outset discussions unveiled intent securing declaration of unilateral advantage US, enabling US maintain status quo seizure Taiwan and continue intervention Chinese internal affairs by preventing Chinese people from liberating own territory Taiwan. All drafts presented by US been imbued with this intent. His side absolutely rejects such attempts. He could only regret intransigence our side over its unjustified position.

7. Wang said we now had to admit so far failed reach agreement question making renunciation force declaration instead had met obstacle. As he said at last meeting he welcomed any move my part putting forth constructive opinions to advance talks this regard. Otherwise, we should change subject our discussion. He noted in my remarks this morning I merely played over old tune and failed put forward any new constructive opinions. He regretted this was case.

8. Wang said they had made clear in talks that holding FMC between China and US absolutely indispensable to solve question relaxation and elimination tension Taiwan area. Nonetheless, two of us as Ambassadors of respective countries should be able go ahead tackle settle certain outstanding matters which hinder improvement relations between two countries. He recalled that when his side Sept 14 last year proposed subject embargo under item two, US indicated readiness discuss subject in talks, thus agreed include this subject in our agenda. He therefore proposed we now start discussing concrete measures for lifting embargo.

9. I replied he had spoken of obstacles met in reaching agreement on question of renunciation force declaration. He had also referred to situation in Taiwan area being most urgent and important question confronting us. I thought we should be clear as to exact nature obstacle now confronting us. While he continued speak of renunciation force declaration, he had continued avoid agreement on statement which would in fact constitute such declaration. Proposition I had put forward here very simple. I had repeated it many times. It was simply that while we disagree about many things and particularly about origin, nature, possible settlement dispute Taiwan area we simply say first we not going go war about those things. Obstacle we faced and continued face was unwillingness his government say this in clear unequivocal language. While he continued speak of renunciation force declaration and we had discussed various drafts embodying that principle it was clear from our discussion here, public statement made by his government and drafts he put forward that while he desired on one hand give appearance having accepted principle, on other hand he attempted retain freedom use force. He had in particular attempted retain for his side freedom use force with regard dispute which we both agreed most urgent and important facing us. To characterize any such declaration as renunciation force would be fraud upon world and could only result increased misunderstanding and increased tension between us. This was obstacle which continued confront us. No playing with words could resolve this. This obstacle could be removed only by decision his government. I had over past months and continue earnestly hope his government would remove that obstacle. If that obstacle removed words could readily be found embody principle. I had in past and still continue feel this first and most urgent task confronting us.

10. I continued from prepared statement:

A. As I told you at meeting November 3 and also subsequently mentioned, I consider there is an inherent relationship between question of renunciation force and what you have termed the trade embargo. My views this regard have not changed. That is, from my standpoint discussion of what you term trade embargo cannot be divorced from continued overhanging threat your government will resort use force in attempt resolve to its satisfaction dispute in Taiwan area. It unrealistic to think my country or any country sensible of its own interests would desire economically to strengthen a country which threatens to resort hostilities if its demands not met. That is, my country does not consider there can be any advantage to it in trade, where goods received in that trade can support use of force against it. This should be self-evident. It thus clear there is an inseparable relationship between renunciation force and subject of trade and that first had an inherent priority over second.

B. I therefore cannot and do not agree that subject renunciation force be dropped. It is and will continue be first and fundamental question in future our relations. I continue seek unconditional and unequivocal agreement your government to this fundamental principle. However, as I said on November 3, in interest of expediting our discussions, while your government continues give consideration to question renunciation force, I am entirely willing hear any views you desire put forward with respect to trade.

11. Wang replied both us made respective points view already clear on question declaration. Repeated effort his side on question making declaration could not be denied or obscured. He had on three successive occasions proposed clear-cut propositions on this question. They could not be distorted. Three drafts put forward by his side testified to sincerity his government this respect and world recognized it as such. I had stated question making declaration is most fundamental task confronting us. Fact was however as experience in talks showed, US always remained on same spot without making progress. He considered this very clear. As far as encountering difficulties in way making declaration, his side always making efforts overcome difficulties. While US always created difficulties with result impossible two sides actually make declaration.

12. Wang continued declaration which they been striving make was one which would resolve unreasonable situation in Taiwan area. Result such declaration should in no way be maintenance of unreasonable situation in Taiwan area or freezing that situation. If they should agree make declaration with US which recognized US occupation their territory Taiwan, then he wondered why should they be here negotiating with US.
He might point out that to harbor any such desire was fantastic and wishful thinking. US Government must realize and be aware this situation. US Government must face realities of historical development. Era in which country can seize territory another country long past. This action inconsistent with modern concept international relations. From my remarks and statements it could be concluded it not sincere in desire overcome difficulties in way making progress. He could only term continuing of discussions this fashion waste of time without constructive meaning. That was reason why he must propose change subject discussions.

13. Wang continued, we must also recognize question of embargo also one of outstanding issues between two countries which hinder development of normal relations. He considered proper settlement question embargo would certainly help improve relations between two countries. As he told me previously policy of embargo imposed on his country by US actually didn’t bring any great harm to his country. However, they opposed this policy embargo because unreasonable of itself. Similar to that of man who injures his own toes by dropping stone (cuts off nose to spite face). Policy embargo unbalances normal international situation and has caused opposition and hostility from countries of world. Remarks I made this morning in effort justify that policy embargo could only be termed without justificaton. I had made charges with regard Chinese making threats of force. He could only say this is putting shoe on wrong foot. It merely lame argument trying justify US threat force against China. I could never succeed in making embargo policy appear reasonable.

14. Wang could not agree to my remarks on what I termed relation between question embargo and renunciation force. US embargo policy first most unfriendly and hostile act of US against China. If there really desire improve relationship between two great powers, this policy embargo mustn’t be allowed remain. That policy not in interests either people. That why he proposed we discuss this question. I had also said we mustn’t abandon subject renunciation force declaration. As he had repeatedly said this is up to US and depends on whether US willing put forward constructive opinion this regard. Obstacle now in way of agreement on renunciation force declaration can only be removed by giving up one-sided and unilateral interest and adopting principle meeting interests both sides.

15. I replied, I had already this morning covered my view obstacle which confronts us with regard declaration. I thought his last remarks though again tended point up difference between us. That is, he spoke of declaration we been discussing as resolving difficulties in dispute in Taiwan area. That is resolving it on his terms. That is, he continued first to confuse question origin, nature, possible resolution on situation Taiwan area with first step of simply saying both of us determined it would not be cause of war between us. No amount of words or rationalization could obscure fact he intended in one way or another to preserve freedom use force in that area. No suggestion for any declaration and no draft I had ever proposed required him recognize anything in that or any other area which his government did not want recognize. US interest has been and remains that of assuring that situation did not lead to war. Every proposal I made solely had purpose saying this clearly. This was what he referred to as one-sided, unilateral interest. If that be correct I could only conclude his government considered it to its interest to maintain ability threaten utilities in area. He had spoken of my position having remained same spot with regard principle of agreeing between us that our differences would not lead to hostilities and saying so clearly. I still hoped by agreeing with this principle his government would remove this obstacle to agreement between us and thus permit us to make real meaningful declaration and open way for fruitful discussion other subjects he desired raise. This would permit these talks result genuine mutual advantage both countries. Still hope they could have that result.

16. Wang agreed there existed difference of principle between two us on question declaration. However differance was between genuine desire settle our disputes and desire continue armed occupation Chinese territory, although this being camouflaged by protestation peaceful intentions. Chinese Government always expressed readiness settle disputes with US by peaceful negotiations. His government always strove aid settlement disputes between two countries by warlike means. However this did not mean his government would accept its territory being forcefully divided and grabbed or in any way agree to its sovereign right being infringed. Next question was under what condition could disputes between two countries in Taiwan area be settled. As they saw it, condition was that neither side try advance own selfish interest at expense others. This condition fundamental condition which any state must follow. This condition they had followed was to be found UN Charter, nothing concealed in this respect and no one could deny its justification. Therefore, in trying overcome difficulties we should follow correct principles international relations instead following selfish interests one side at expense other. This government always desired respect territorial integrity and sovereign right of US. At same time expected US do same respecting sovereign rights territorial integrity his country. If we could reach common understanding this regard, then difference could be readily resolved. Our talks could only progress in this spirit.

17. I asked if he thought it harming interests his country simply to say clearly, unequivocally we not going go war over disputes between us including those Taiwan area. How would that harm his country?

18. Wang replied he had made it clear many times as long as Taiwan under occupation foreign forces, whether there were war or not, interests his country were always being harmed.

19. I asked if he was therefore maintaining threat use force to resolve that situation to satisfaction his country?

20. Wang replied this entirely reversing rights and wrongs of situation. This way saying things entirely unreasonable. The actual threat existing in Taiwan area at this moment in fact came from US occupation Taiwan by force. One might ask whether US would cling to occupation Chinese territory by force.

21. I charged Wang with avoiding question. I had many times given facts with regard situation there. US not occupying Taiwan. However my purpose from beginning been try avoid discussion at this stage all rights and wrongs situation there. I had not attempted force on him any views with regard situation there and had tried keep them our discussion this stage. What I had tried do was simply arrive agreement with him this stage that both of us agree we do not go war over it. That is all. If his government would adopt same attitude we could very readily reach agreement.

22. Wang challanged my statement US not occupying Taiwan. Nobody could be deceived by this remark. If US had not used force occupy Taiwan then Taiwan would long ago been rejoined to motherland. Any such remark could in no way succeed whitewash and defend aggression of US. He did not think any arguments or remarks along this line could contribute to our discussions.

23. I said it did not contribute to our discussions to characterize the relations between the US and government occupying Taiwan as US occupation of Taiwan or US aggression. Two of us could very easily get selves in long acrimonious discussion all these questions. I had tried my best this stage avoid such unprofitable discussion. I hoped we could get back to first and fundamental principle of simply saying we not going go war about it. That was all I had that subject.

24. Wang said he had merely pointed out real facts situation. They would not put up with incorrect and absurd arguments. He had nothing more say this regard this morning.

25. I said he had often spoken here of these talks as well as specific subjects we been discussing being benefit both our countries. He had spoken of necessity their not being one-sided. I entirely agreed with that. I wanted point out briefly that as far as first subject we came here discuss, return civilians, results appear very one-sided to my country. After weeks of discussion, he and I arrived at agreement on issuing agreed announcement September 10 with regard civilians. During that discussion I had pointed out we had unilaterally and without demanding concessions entirely removed all restrictions which had previously been imposed on departure any Chinese from my country. I agreed to arrangements which he proposed with regard third power functions. My government had fully complied with both letter and spirit of announcement we issued at that time. Chinese continuing depart freely my country and arriving his country. In more than ten months now past since issuance that announcement, not single case any obstruction of Chinese wishing depart from my country has been brought to our attention.

26. Although not included in original discussions and I did not consider they covered in agreed announcement, we even gone to extent making it possible for any Chinese in prison my country to leave for his country. This done in response to representations this regard he subsequently made to me here. Its full implementation thus far been delayed only because inexplicable objections his government to participation by Indian Embassy in determining whether and which of these prisoners desire return his country. Thus results agreed announcement from standpoint his country been very substantial.

25. Regretted results from standpoint my country had been very meager. When began discussions here I hoped we be able equalize situation nationals our respective countries by his country taking action to permit all those Americans who desire return to do so. Our discussions in regard Americans revolved primarily around those imprisoned his country. Wang and his government well aware our strong interest in this group Americans. In fact at time we issued our agreed announcement these were only Americans we knew of who desired to return and being prevented do so. Two of us had long discussion on the subject when these persons would be able leave return US. He would recall I was very insistent on some statement time so no misunderstanding between us. He refused agree any statement of time. He told me however their cases would be handled very quickly. In effect said they would be handled much more quickly than in past and issuance of announcement would greatly expedite their release. Although I was dissatisfied with lack explicitness his statements in order not prolong discussions, get ahead. I finally agreed to his suggestion use word “expeditiously” this connection. I told him my country would interpret that word mean exactly what it said. Neither my country nor anyone else could by any stretch imagination consider these people were being permitted return expeditiously. In fact difficult for me see there had been any substantial improvement in situation that existed even before our agreed announcement. In spite use word “expeditious” in agreed announcement his assurances that release Americans would be markedly expedited in comparison with situation before issuance announcement, I could see little or no change in situation.

26. I did not desire get into complicated question numbers, proportion or that type of thing with him, I simply wanted to point out that at 6th meeting August 13 he made statement 38 Americans left China during year since June 1954 as result review their cases. Of those who remained prison, after ten of whose release he informed me September 10, only 8 Americans have been released permitted return to US in approximately 11 months since we issued that announcement. I not only considered this performance grossly at variance specific terms our agreed announcement but also considered results our agreed announcement to have been very much one-sided. I had often as earnestly as could spoken to him of relationship this whole question to improvement our relations. I come here most earnestly seeking that improvement and I still sought it. I again appealed to him to impress upon his authorities tremendous importance with which we view this question.

27. Wang said very dissatisfied with my last statement. Chinese Government had indeed handled cases American law breakers China with most lenient policy. Among 40 such American lawbreakers serving sentences his country there remain only 11 prisoners. That is majority these 40 now returned US as result lenient policy his government. How could I say this figure not substantial or little. Perhaps I was dissatisfied with fact they had released too many. Otherwise he could only term this deliberate reversal facts. US failed faithfully carry out agreement between two sides. I had stated Chinese in US free make departure. These merely empty words. As matter fact of 55 persons regarding whose return I had made representation, 53 still had not returned. Among 103 persons who desired return his country, 28 still failed return. As to these persons not yet returned his country, I could not say Chinese in US free depart. In addition, even after issuance agreed announcement, US made requirement Chinese in US must apply permanent residence US. In addition to that, requirement by my authorities Chinese in US apply entry permits Taiwan. All these requirements he could only say very bad—in violation our agreement.

28. Wang continued they had learned recently there had been moves by my authorities try send Chinese in our prisons to Taiwan. As said many times Chinese in our prisons have no freedom at all to state their will. And recent moves our authorities send Chinese in our prisons to Taiwan was yet another threat to these persons in prison. Also these at variance with agreement between us. These are violations agreement. If US really has interest and desire settle question civilians between two countries it should honestly observe agreement instead violating it. He also asked me impress upon US Govt that Chinese people and Government extremely dissatisfied with action US Govt in violation agreement.

29. I replied he had spoken of majority of Americans in their prisons having returned. I simply wanted point out agreed announcement didn’t cover some or majority Americans their prisons; it covered all of them. Only release all of them would be compliance with our announcement not their return six months after agreed announcement, a year or 5 years, but their expeditious return as of date issuance announcement. As far as Chinese in US concerned, even since before issuance agreed announcement not just one-third or one-half or majority of those desiring return able return, but any of them who desire return able return. Best and indisputable test whether or not this is fact is third power arrangement established to confirm it. Thus far not a single one has alleged any obstruction. I previously discussed and would not take time this morning to discuss his persistent reference to what he termed requiring people to obtain permanent resident and Taiwan entry permits. However I would be glad discuss that again in detail any time if he desired.

30. I asked him with regard his statement this morning to let me simply say as far as Chinese in prison concerned no one going be sent against his will any place. It was in order assure him this was case that suggestion made by my government with regard participation Indian Embassy. As far as freedom persons in prison express will concerned, he can certainly reach decision as to whether desires remain prison, subject same commutation of sentence and parole procedures as other prisoners or whether desires immediately leave prison for another country. Each man knowing own situation can certainly decide this for self. I might mention that since I last discussed this with him, two additional Chinese prisoners had been released under normal parole procedures.

31. Wang had no more comments to make on this question. His government failed faithfully carry out announcement it should not at same time make false charges against other. Unfounded charges would not in any way help resolve matter.

32. I thought facts very clear.

33. Wang felt facts I have in mind incorrect and everybody aware of that.

34. I had nothing more and proposed next Thursday if agreeable to Wang.

35. He proposed making it Thursday August 9 and I agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–2656. Confidential; Limit Distribution.