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

813. Telegram unnumbered from Geneva¹

Geneva, July 11, 1957

Unnumbered. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 68th with prepared statement. As he had repeatedly stressed, purpose of talks was for both sides to arrive at peaceful settlement of disputes between two countries. In this desire his side had put forth series of practical and feasible proposals each of which could lessen tensions and open up prospects of improved relations between China and America. But what had history of talks shown? My side had not only shown no intention of contributing to that realization, but had not abandoned its hostility toward China. My side was only interested in working up tension and stepping up threat of armed force against China. This willful policy of U.S. was increasingly meeting with defeat. For example, a great number of Western countries relaxed embargo in face U.S. objections. U.S. policy of hostility against China did not conform to interests of peace or of American people. Even people in U.S. criticizing that policy.

2. Wang continued, in San Francisco, Secretary of State Dulles not only clung to that outworn policy but called for even more aggressive policy. American Secretary of State was not yet willing to reconcile himself to fact PRC had existed for eight years. His speech did not hide intention subverting and overthrowing PRC. Dulles called PRC passing phase and pledged self to contribute to this passing. Could this be called sincere desire for settlement disputes and relaxation tensions between two countries? U.S. not only unwilling renounce occupation Chinese territory Taiwan but had installed guided missile bases on Taiwan. An American squadron had intruded in Chinese territorial waters and 66 sorties of carrier-based planes violated Chinese air space. However, this U.S. policy of creating tension and threat of aggression against China could not achieve its ends.

3. Wang continued, not only was this policy opposed by Chinese people but it being condemned by all peaceful people. Even in Taiwan, under close control American aggressor, all patriotic people can no longer endure being enslaved nor countenance Taiwan being turned into American base; they have therefore risen in protest against this policy and against outrageous slaughter of Chinese people. 600 million people would never forget this and other bloody crimes committed by American aggressor against China.

4. Wang continued, after seizure of Chinese Territory Taiwan, my side has been proposing what it calls Renunciation of Force. During these negotiations my side had never slackened aggression against China, and continued set up bases for aggressive guided missile atomic warfare against China. My side continued create provocation incidents to increase tensions. Under these circumstances the Renunciation of Force proposal was a deceptive and hypocritical excuse. As long as U.S. did not change its policy of hostility and aggression tensions would not be relaxed, disputes would not be settled, relations would not be improved and there would be no results in our talks and the U.S. would be held entirely responsible for the consequences.

5. Wang continud, he had another matter to bring up. At previous meetings he had given examples of unreasonable obstructions. Last year on February 9 at the 36th meeting he had given me a list of names including Tseng Kuang-chih. Tseng had now returned to China but story he had to tell was appalling one. Wang had thought my side would have taken measures concerning, and give accounting of, individuals on that list. He understood Tseng taken away in handcuffs under orders Immigration Service and confined in solitary confinement in mental institution. Until recently Tseng had been subject to deportation although he had not violated any laws. It is hard to understand under what authority so many have been detained, and, in the cases of Mr. Tseng and Mr. Liu, imprisoned in mental hospitals. Repetition of this kind of treatment shows US authorities pay no heed to our Agreed Announcement. This situation increases our anxiety concerning the fate of the 50 and the 32 people who not yet returned. Wang urged me impress on US authorities that they should stop violating Agreed Announcement and give accounting of those being detained. With regard to detention of Dr. Lin which he had mentioned last meeting he would like to hear any comments I had and would like to know whether US prepared to return property to owner.

6. I replied during past two years we had long and frank discussions of certain questions existing between our two countries. Although our differences unhappily remain deep and fundamental I believed he would share my view that it had nevertheless been desirable and useful to have such a direct exchange of views between us. We had though, at times, tended to digress from what both of us agreed was a fundamental matter, and I first wanted briefly to return to that this morning. I referred to the question as to whether we were going to permit the clash of our policies and in particular our differences with respect to the Taiwan area to lead to a clash of arms. He would recall that at the very beginning of our discussion of this subject I had proposed the simple first step of a reciprocal renunciation of force couched in terms that would make it clear that neither of us were renouncing any policy objectives that we considered ourselves legitimately entitled to achieve.

7. I continued, Wang had this morning again spoken of what he called the policy of aggression and hostility of U.S. government against his country. He could not ignore fact that from beginning these talks it was U.S. which had made proposal we renounce force as means achieve national policy objectives and especially with regard clash our policies in general and specifically with regard Taiwan area. From very beginning of the time when his authorities took control of Mainland China they exhibited policy of undisguised hostility toward my country and everything for which my country stood. This hostility not only extended to my country but also to countries with which my country stood in relationship of friendship and alliance. It was authorities of his country who had grossly mistreated U.S. officials and made impossible the maintenance of U.S. official establishments on territory under the control of Wang’s authorities. It was the authorities of his country who expelled, mistreated and imprisoned Americans who attempted remain in territory under control Wang’s authorities. U.S. never had threatened, and never would initiate the use of arms against Wang’s country. It was Wang’s country which had attacked U.S. forces in Korea who were there on a lawful mission under the authority of the U.N. It was his authorities who had supported and fomented rebellion in the territory of countries friendly to the U.S. I would not take time further to review record but that record clear one of undisguised hostility of his country toward my country.

8. I continued it was with hope bringing about fundamental change in that situation and thus opening of way to peaceful settlement in those disputes that I had made my proposal for peaceful settlement of disputes between us. It not possible to ignore the fact that one of basic obstacles to progress our talks here and peaceful discussion and settlement of our problems continued to be unwillingness of his authorities to agree to this simple proposition. It was a source of deep disappointment and concern that they continued to insist on their intention to use force if necessary to achieve their policy objectives. This was basic cause of tension in the whole Far East which imposed a heavy burden on the people of the area. Neither those people nor the United States and its allies could ignore this threat nor fail to take such steps as were within their power to meet the possibility of its implementation. It was absurd to say that the steps taken by the U.S. and other like-minded countries to meet this threat were the cause of tension. The cause of tension came not from those who took reasonable and sensible precautions to defend themselves against the publicly announced threat of attack but rather from those who refused to renounce such threats. It was equally absurd to say that if those subject to such threats would only not take any precautions and supinely leave themselves defenseless against such threats there would be no tension. Of course, there would be no tension if all who were subject to threats in this world would meekly surrender to those who attempt to arrogate unto themselves the authority to tell peoples and countries how their lives should be ordered. However, it hard to believe that those who take such point of view understand the meaning of negotiation and settlement of differences by peaceful means between self-respecting sovereign countries.

9. I continued therefore essential first step remained removal of this threat, and tension it caused, by a reciprocal renunciation of force. This step was of such transcendental importance to the peaceful settlement of our differences that I considered that it deserved discussion as long as necessary to reach agreement rather than ignoring it or pretending that the problem did not exist. Neither can the problem be evaded by submitting numbers of drafts which reflected no serious attempt squarely to face the issue and then shift the discussion to other.purely corollary problems. Such a course could not contribute to progress in our talks here.

10. I continued, as Wang knew, I had just returned from trip to U.S. I want him to know that my conversations there not only with officials of my government but also with private individuals brought home to me depth of concern of American people over Americans still imprisoned in his country. They also concerned over failure give us that information about Americans still missing from hostilities in Korea which his authorities must have. Question of imprisoned Americans ought to have been and still could be short-run problem which need not require long discussions. All it required was that his authorities take those measures for their release that were envisaged in the Agreed Announcement. It was evident that none with whom I talked was able to understand the failure to carry out the promise contained in the Announcement. Neither could I. Chinese in U.S. desiring to return their country, continued be entirely free do so. In fact, to best of my knowledge at least 345 had done so since beginning our talks here.

11. I continued, in accordance with request made at our last meeting which Wang had repeated here this morning, I had looked into the matter of Dr. Lin Lan-ying who returned to Wang’s country early this year. Contrary to the statements Wang said she now makes, she at no time prior to her departure made any allegation that she was in any way being obstructed or prevented from departing and very fact she did depart is best evidence that there was no such obstruction. At the time of her departure a search was made by the Customs Authorities—not by the FBI as Wang asserted—in accordance with customary procedure and with all customary safeguards to determine whether there was any attempted violation of law. It was found that Dr. Lin was, in violation of a long standing regulation of which she must have been perfectly aware, attempting to take with her an amount of U.S. dollar funds far in excess of any reasonable needs for the trip. In spite of this attempted violation of our laws and regulations no action was taken against her and she was permitted to proceed without hindrance. Excess funds she was attempting to remove from the country had not been confiscated as implied in Wang’s statement but had rather been deposited to her credit in a blocked account. Further search was made only to determine whether she was attempting to remove additional matter or information in violation of U.S. law and rather than delay her departure she was told that written matter carried by her would subsequently be examined for such information. Not only is this a matter entirely within the competence and authority of my government but I had noted that Americans who had returned from Wang’s country reported that Wang’s authorities had very strictly limited the amount of funds they had been permitted take with them. Thus, I saw no grounds whatever for any complaint with regard Dr. Lin who, in spite of attempted violation of U.S. law, was freely permitted proceed to Wang’s country.

12. I continued Wang had this morning mentioned and his radio had carried reports making entirely erroneous statements concerning Mr. Tseng Kuang-chih. Purport statements was after Tseng indicated desire return Wang’s country, Tseng arrested and falsely handled as person mentally unsound. Facts of matter were quite different. Mr. Tseng entered U.S. on January 30, 1948 and originally entered as student Maryland University. In somewhat more than a year he showed signs of mental illness. Between June 1949 and March 1950 he was treated in Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and Spring Groves State Hospital in Maryland. He improved and was released and entered into study at Ohio State University, then Illinois University, then Purdue University. Although visa for admission into US expired Sept. 1955, he was permitted remain. Although Wang had included his name on list given Feb. 9, 1956 as person who desired return Wang’s country, Tseng himself in March 1956 formally and specifically applied for extension his stay in U.S. It became evident to authorities at Purdue University where he studying that he again becoming mentally ill. They made arrangements for his admission to Wabash Valley Sanatorium on April 18, 1956. At recommendation of doctors in that hospital, he was admitted to Logansport Indiana State Hospital on May 25, 1956. At time moved from Wabash to Logansport he placed under restraint at recommendation of doctors for own protection. The restraint immediately removed on admission Logansport Hospital. Any implication that this done on recommendation Immigration Service entirely false. It done entirely on recommendation doctors for own protection and those around him. Student advisor at Purdue remained in touch with him to see what could be done for him. After admission to hospital, he indicated to student adviser that he desired return to Wang’s country. Student adviser communicated with Dept. of State and there was also communication with Indian Embassy concerning his case. Doctors treating Tseng certified not advisable nor was he competent to travel alone. Thus there arose question payment for attendant for him during his travel. Indian Embassy said not authorized pay for an attendant. I would not go into details, but in January of this year Mr. Tseng informed the Indian Embassy that in order to facilitate question of attendant, he had informed U.S. Immigration Service of desire leave country. Embassy replied they had no objection if he desired use facilities INS rather than Embassy. INS then arranged for an attendant to accompany him. INS paid cost of such an attendant as well as cost of travel. He now returned safely to Wang’s country and arrived there. I thought handling this case by authorities my country showed utmost care in assisting him as well as facilitation his return to Wang’s country. Rather than ill-considered complaints, I should have felt an expression of appreciation would be more in order. I regretted that cases of Americans imprisoned in Wang’s country desiring to return had not been as considerately handled as our authorities had handled cases Mr. Tseng and Dr. Lin. This problem of Americans remaining in prison in Wang’s country was readily resolvable by his authorities so that further discussion of it between us would not be necessary. The solution of this problem would permit us to direct our undivided attention to the question of reciprocal renunciation of force, which remains fundamental to successful discussion of other items under second part our terms of reference.

13. Wang replied question of taking effective steps and means to relax tension Taiwan area and settling disputes between our two countries was at center of terms reference leading to present talks between us. In talking about causes and sources tension Taiwan area and disputes between our countries he had to flatly reject my statement which he could only consider arbitrary. It entirely reversed and obscured the facts. It failed to take into account facts of situation. Liberation of China and establishment of PRC entirely natural development of internal forces China and no foreign country should have any right to interfere in this affair.

14. Wang continued, since establishment PRC U.S. been pursuing policy downright hostility to China and policy which did not recognize existence of PRC. Furthermore, U.S. taken series steps in opposition to PRC. It was U.S. which had initiated policy embargo against China. It U.S. started aggression in Korea and brought about armed threat against his country. It U.S. who still occupied by armed force their territory Taiwan and established aggressive military bases against his country. It was U.S. which carried out threatening and aggressive activities around territory his country. It was U.S. which did everything it could deprive PRC of right take part in affairs of international community.

15. Wang continued, objective this series hostile policies and activities was interfere in internal affairs his country and as Dulles announced object of US was try subvert Wang’s government. No amount statements could cover up the series arbitrary and gross violations of standards international conduct, and of Charter U.N., against Wang’s country. Wang’s country could not be shaken by such aggressive and hostile policies by U.S. China would exist forever and would become consolidated and stronger. Those who would suffer would be persons who tried play with fire in this respect.

16. Wang continued, today’s situation was that U.S. stationing military bases on territory other countries. It was U.S. threatening and attempting subvert Wang’s country rather than Wang’s country trying subvert my government. It was no more than deception to present this sort of policy of hostility as being steps for defensive purposes. In point of fact people in Asia as well as all other places rising to protest against U.S. policy of creating tensions. This was underlying cause present tension in Far East, and cause failure achieve relaxed situation there. This was reason he proposed discuss question relaxing tension in Far East. They on their part had made repeated efforts and made series of proposals in course talks in order that tension in Taiwan Area may be relaxed.

17. Wang continued, we had discussed for nearly two years and still had not achieved anything. He had always been dissatisfied with the situation. It not his side who stalling in this question, not his side who had digressed from this problem. Still remained to see whether serious efforts would be made in these talks to relax tension in Taiwan Area. In this regard no empty words would settle the problem.

18. I replied all I had to say was important thing not that we agree on past history. Important thing was we take new departure. I proposed that new departure two years ago. That departure was to make it unequivocally clear that we were not going to use force or threat of force to settle our differences. His government still publicly and in this room maintained threat use force if it could not otherwise achieve its objectives. Nothing that had been said could change that fact. Once that threat clearly and unequivocally removed so negotiations could take place free from that threat, attempts to resolve them could be undertaken with some hope of success. To say U.S. in conjunction with allies would renounce common sense measures taken to meet that threat was not serious attempt at negotiation, but rather a call to surrender to Wang’s point of view. What I have asked and still asked was that the threat be renounced.

19. Wang replied, in course past two years he had repeatedly said we should take active steps to settle dispute in Taiwan area. They had time and again expressed dissatisfaction at fact meetings being stalled and problems remained unsettled. They had made various concrete proposals but these had not aroused either a response or an echo. I had mentioned need of taking up new departure—new starting point. This would be welcomed on his part. This would mean one should not further drag out these talks but take steps to push talks forward, to stop empty statements, and one should take concrete action. Even more important would be to see concrete action coming out from new departure I had referred to.

20. I replied, new departure I had referred to was renunciation threat force proposed by my side. It was departure he still refused to undertake. It was departure which was fundamental.

21. Wang replied I had said that relaxation tension in Taiwan area was fundamental problem to be dealt with between us. To this he agreed. Question remained by what formula disputes between us were to be settled. Any proposal for settlement this problem which violated sovereign rights of one side was unacceptable. Any proposal to solve this question should be based on respect of sovereign rights. He had made this fully clear in course our discussion and in proposals his side put forth on renunciation force. Method of dragging out talks could not settle these problems between us. Now it remained for us to see what action U.S. would take to bring about genuine settlement this dispute.

22. I replied, first problem not question settling one way or other sovereign rights nor settling formulae or forums in which this matter may be discussed. I had tried to make it clear first question was to agree we were not going to fight—that is, that the threat to use force had been withdrawn. I had offered him various formulae for draft declarations which would enable him fully to preserve his position and enable him to pursue his policies without using threat of force. He had come back with various formulae and drafts which in themselves in the light of discussions here, and of public statements, made it clear he preserved right threaten and use force. He asked that I negotiate substance of question itself under that threat. I had tried make it as clear as I could this is what I could not and would not do. However, once that threat removed in clear and unequivocal statement we could then in that atmosphere discuss further steps to be taken.

23. Wang replied, in settlement tension in Taiwan area, the question of sovereign rights could not be put aside. If sovereign rights were discarded, then a state could no longer be considered a state. I had stated the central problem was avoiding war between us. But China not proposing to start a war with U.S. They were prepared to settle problems between us by just methods but this did not mean surrender to any side. It would not serve useful purpose to repeat old words which had been repeated many times. Repetition of old words and remarks did not constitute new departure. With respect my remarks this morning concerning Chinese civilians in U.S. he could not be satisfied with those remarks. He reserved comments for next meeting.

24. I had nothing more and suggested next meeting August 8. He agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/7–1157. Confidential; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Johnson. Sent via pouch. Received on July 18.