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

704. Telegram 173 from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 21, 1956, 7 p.m.

173. From Johnson.

1. I opened 56th today with following prepared statement:

A. For past few meetings you been attempting get me agree with you abandon search for meaningful renunciation force and go on to discussion topic you proposed last September, what you call question of embargo. You been trying do this, as you say, because you consider our search for agreement on renunciation force is in one-sided interest of US whereas, presumably, you expect discussion trade would be to advantage your country.

B. I not willing abandon search for agreement on renunciation force. I cannot agree renunciation force would only benefit my country. I believe it would serve real interests not only our two peoples, but of world at large. Nor can I accept your contention it is “one-sided” on my part prefer seek agreement on basis your Dec 1 draft, as amplified clarified by my amendments, other than switiching over to new and unsatisfactory basis your May 11 draft.

C. Nevertheless, I have not refused exchange views with you on what you term embargo. On contrary. I have consistently expressed willingness take note of whatever views you may wish put forward this regard, while at same time expressing our attitude toward matter. Such attitude my part is not inconsistent with my position our first immediate task should be that of reaching agreement on renunciation force. In fact, believe any rational and dispassionate consideration of matter of trade would only reinforce point have so often made here: —that trade problem stands in collateral relation to problem we dealing with in our discussions renunciaton force. That is, so long as threat and possibility exist that goods received in trade would be used support hostile action against forces my country, it not realistic expect my country look with favor on such trade.

D. Another reason why I should be glad hear your views on topic trade is that in your remarks so far you given no indication what advantage you expect or demand from discussion that topic. You have talked in vague general terms of what you call policy international blockade and embargo, and demanded its abolition. I not aware any blockade by my country. As for what you term “embargo” you have repeatedly avoided my questions as to just what aspect or aspects this matter you had in mind. You have denied your country has experienced any difficulty as result trade policies my country. You have acknowledged principle trade should take place only on terms mutual benefit; yet that precisely purpose trade policies my country. Where trade can or may have effect supporting use force against one of parties to exchange, how can it be considered mutually beneficial?

E. So far your remarks on subject trade seem be utterly out of keeping with your position in introducing topic, when you seemed have in mind some specific advantage your country. You say what you call policy embargo should be abolished, not for good your country, but for good of my counry and other countries. Inasmuch as measures with regard trade with your country which are in effect my country and other countries have been effected accordance their respective sovereign decisions and interests, I find this position yours hard understand.

F. You also say what you seek in demanding abolition these measures is general improvement relations between our two countries. As have often pointed out you here, in addition carrying out our agreed announcement Sept 10 last year first essential step to improvement relations between two countries is agreement on meaningful renunciation force. Only by so doing can we approach peaceful resolution our differences—whatever their nature—in atmosphere free from overhanging threat force. Yet practical effect your present insistence on prior discussion trade is to delay agreement on renunciation force, thus put off, rather than hasten, improvement relations. Would welcome any concrete views you can put forward this morning that will clarify these points.

2. Speaking from notes, Wang replied he did not deny declaration on renunciation force one of central issues in dispute between two countries. As matter fact this patient attitude their side was fully proved by fact they put forward three drafts for such declaration and joined in discussion this topic for as long as ten months. However failure so far reach agreement or make progress in discussion this topic making declaration renouncing use force has been due to persistence my side in unreasonable demands we put forward and our failure also been due to fact my side deliberately created obstacles in way reaching agreement that regard.

3. Wang continued if there genuine desire make meaningful declaration on renunciation force there no reason why their reasonable proposals should not be accepted. It would not in any way contribute to progress in discussion of declaration to merely repeat desire not to abandon efforts on this topic, while at same time there is failure offer concrete changes. Since we had found difficulty on question making declaration renunciation force, we should try not entangle ourselves any longer in this respect, because there are other problems and disputes between two countries which awaiting solution. That was why he had been insisting on our discussion of question of embargo.

4. Wang said in discussing this problem of embargo their side already made clear their position on question. He was pleased note I had expressed willingness discuss this problem with him and had been willing hear concrete opinion their side would put forward this respect. (Turning to prepared statement, Wang continued.) He would now put forward draft agreed announcement to be adopted by two sides this matter. He proposed two sides adopt and announce this draft agreed announcement as means of settling disputes between China and US on trade.

5. Wang read draft agreed announcement on trade (Geneva’s telegram 168). Handed me copies.

6. Wang continued he sure if I carefully study draft will find it entirely fair reasonable advantageous to both sides. Adoption and announcement of this agreed announcement would not only resolve one of outstanding problems between our two countries thereby bringng about gradual improvement Sino-American relations, but will certainly contribute to relaxation international tensions. Goes without saying practical problems will not be resolved by mere adoption this agreed annoucement; thus following issuance announcement parties expected actually to take measures on own initiative to ensure its implementaton.

7. I replied was glad note he still agreed with me question meaningful renunciation force central issue between us. However, entirely unable agree failure thus far reach agreement due what he termed unreasonable demands my side. I entirely unable agree my side deliberately created obstacles to our reaching such agreement. In fact situation very much other way around. I carefully took his draft of Dec 1 which seemed to offer prospect of agreement and made only few essential amendments thereto that would make clear it would cover our most serious disagreement and neither of us sacrificing inherent right self defense. Twice in succession I had offered suggestions in attempt meet his point view, entirely preserving language his proposal. This could hardly be characterized as unreasonable or deliberately creating obstacles. However, his action abandoning even that portion in which we had already reached agreement, reverting back to old positions and conditions, even adding new conditions, had been real obstacle to agreement. Despite time admittedly spent discussing this, extremely difficult me interpret this as genuine desire reach agreement. Way reach agreement was preserve areas agreement already reached and advance from there. This what I had attempted do and if his side would adopt same attitude I satisfied agreement could be reached between us. My April 19 draft did this and if we could proceed from that—which based on his Dec 1 draft—it seemed to me progress could be resumed.

8. I reiterated with respect his proposal this morning principal barrier improvement relations was continued threat his side initiate use force to resolve dispute in Taiwan area. All my suggestions with regard declaration renunciaton force directed toward resolving that problem on mutually beneficial basis, thus really opening door toward resolution other problems between us. As I pointed out last meeting and again this morning, question trade relations was effect of that situation, rather than cause. Would appreciate any thoughts he might have on how this cause might be removed.

9. Wang replied from proposal he made this morning for agreed announcement designed remove embargo, their efforts in gradually improving relations between two countries could be noted. We faced with great number issues which require resolving one by one. As regards allegation made by me few moments ago that China threatened use force Taiwan area, could only consider allegation slanderous without basis. One which used force in Taiwan area not China but US itself. Their side always maintained removal embargo was one of ways improving relations between two countries. If we should attempt put together all issues and entangle them, we would find we not able settle any one them. Therefore, he considered in discussing question trade and embargo nobody should impose any precondition. This morning he would appreciate any views I might have with regard draft agreed announcement he just put forward.

10. I said thought I had expressed views very clearly. I had not and would not create artificial entanglement of issues. I thought inherent relationship between questions renunciation and trade very clear. If trade between our two countries to be of benefit my country, should be clear goods received in that trade would not be used support use force. This inevitably led us back to question renunciation force. Hard to see how discussion of item trade could be fruitful until question renunciation force resolved. This not artificial but perfectly natural and logical relationship. Hoped by next meeting he would have considered matter from this standpoint. I would welcome any concrete thoughts he had for its resolution.

11. Wang could not feel satisfied with my remarks this respect. During long months passed in discussion previous topic renunciation force US consistently created obstacles preventing us reaching agreement. However I also indicated willing discuss question embargo and suggested he put forward concrete views on question trade. Now that he had put forward concrete views and concrete proposals this morning, I again tried evade positive reply while at same time putting forward preconditions. In view this situation, could he take it I not willing discuss question embargo and not willing seek practical settlement this problem? At same time could he take it my side not willing consider reasonable proposal he put forward this morning. He would appreciate clarification by me to problems he raised.

12. I denied ever saying not willing consider any proposal he put forward. I many times offered receive his views on trade. At same time always pointed out inherent relationship between this and renunciaton force and asked that he at same time reconsider his positon with regard renunciation force. In that way I had hoped time could be conserved and progress resumed. I would make any further comments in this regard at our next meeting.

13. Wang asked if I meant I would make further comments on proposal he made this morning.

14. I replied was not going to be tied down to what I would say next meeting or make advance commitments.

15. Wang said thought we must realize we have very important responsibilities in these talks. Our responsibility is seek by every means at our disposal, to bring about improvement in relations between China and US. We must endeavor by every means within our ability to remove existing obstacles in relations between two countries. This he considered highly important necessity for both our sides. It precisely based on this approach to these talks that his side entered talks. All proposals he made were made in this spirit. We both recognized that existing embargo was one of obstacles in relations between our two countries.
If we could succeed in reaching reasonable solution to this dispute it would certainly contribute to resolution of other disputes. He believed this approach reasonable and realistic. He had not tried reverse order of things. In view my willingness consider proposal he made this morning, he hoped at next meeting I would have carefully studied it and make concrete reply.

16. I replied he had said removal of what he called embargo between two countries would contribute to resolution of other disputes between us. There were three problems between us which my side had thus far raised. First question was that of Americans detained in his country at opening these talks and ten of whom still detained in spite of what I thought was resolution of that problem last September. Other two as we well know were: question of renunciation force specifically applicable to Taiwan area; I also previously raised here with him question of accounting for military personnel still missing from Korean hostilities. These were questions I had thus far raised in these talks. Could I interpret his remark, therefore, to imply that if question of embargo satisfactorily resolved from this standpoint, it would contribute to resolution of these problems I had raised.

17. Wang said obliged point out question of what I called missing Americans which I had just mentioned, not within terms reference these talks. As regards other questions I raised he might say his side also not satisfied. For instance, on question of returning civilians if US had faithfully abided by agreement we reached here last year, he sure situation would be much more satisfactory than now. Situation equally true on question making declaration renunciation force. If my side had accepted his proposal making declaration without prejudice to sovereign rights and territorial integrity of parties and without prejudice to domestic matters of parties—he satisfied we able make progress that regard. If my side had accepted that principle he satisfied we would long ago have made declaration. I had repeatedly made allegation of existence threat force but why had my side not made declaration on renouncing force on basis principles contained his proposals—that is without prejudice sovereign rights and territorial integrity and without interfering internal affairs other side. It could thus be seen which side always ready resolve issues and which side not willing do same. As pointed out, question embargo is obstacle in relations between two countries. Also wanted point out if I would only accept proposal he made this morning he satisfied it would certainly contribute to resolution other problems as well. Agreement in this regard would certainly create favorable atmosphere and provide us with favorable basis for settlement issues between two countries. Could anyone deny this is what both our two peoples desire?

18. I said when we were discussing agreed announcement on civilians, I completely met his point view on third power arrangements in US, on removing all barriers to return Chinese students who desired return his country, on form of announcement he desired make in this regard, and on his desire make no specific statement of exact time limit within which Americans permitted return, with understanding this would resolve first problem I had raised in these talks, return of Americans. Fact that US completely abided by this agreement incontrovertibly sustained by fact third power arrangement even after passage almost year, has not brought to our attention single case obstruction. Yet in spite this, it has not resolved problem of return of Americans. As I previously pointed out we seem to be going backwards in this regard. With regard announcement on renunciation force, I accepted in full all language of his Dec 1 draft, making only minimal amendments required to make it really meaningful with regard to our most serious dispute. When he said acceptance of proposal with regard trade would contribute to solution of other problems between us and provide basis for settlement issues it certainly understandable if I asked what concrete content such a statement had.

19. Wang said was sure he had already clearly answered in several remarks this morning, questions I asked. Agreement on removal embargo would demonstrate two of us here really engaged in settling questions rather than stalling and were really working to get rid of obstacles rather than creating obstacles in our relations. Success in this regard would indicate even though we met difficulties on other issues, yet we have scored progress in this present problem. For both of us solving problems better than not solving.

20. I had nothing more. Wang asked if I agreeable meeting Thursday Sept 6. I was.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2156. Confidential; Limit Distribution.