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

821. Despatch unnumbered from Geneva¹

Geneva, August 8, 1957

SUBJECT

• China Talks—69th Meeting

1. I opened 69th with following statement:

a. “In looking over the record of our nearly two years’ of negotiation on the vital topic of renunciation of force, I am concerned that despite the many months of discussion there has been no progress since early 1956. Indeed I might even say that with the submission of your draft of May 11, 1956 much of the progress which had been achieved before then seems to have been wiped out. I am deeply concerned with this because the threat to peace in the Taiwan area which prevailed when we first began discussion of this topic still exists and, in some respects, has increased. Your side has continued building up its armed strength in the Taiwan area while at the same time continuing to make clear that it will use this armed strength if necessary to achieve its policy objectives.

b. The basic views of my government as to the question of renunciation of force remain those which I set forth in our meeting on October 8, 1955. You will recall that I stressed that the U.S. was not proposing that either side abandon its views or give up the right peacefully to pursue its policies, or that either side renounce the right to defend itself. I simply sought, and I still seek, an agreement whereby both sides would renounce force as a means of pursuing their respective policies, both generally and particularly in regard to the Taiwan area. Such a reciprocal renunciation of force we regarded, and still regard, as an essential first step toward the peaceful settlement of differences between our two governments.

c. At our October 27 meeting you submitted a draft agreed announcement dealing with the subject of renunciation of force. As you will recall we found your draft deficient in its omission of any reference to the right of self-defense and in its failure to relate renunciation of force to the Taiwan area. We also felt that your suggestion for a foreign ministers meeting was, at best, premature at that stage when your side was still unwilling unequivocally to renounce the use of force with respect to the Taiwan area. In our draft agreed announcement of November 10 we attempted to use language which would be mutually agreeable, not prejudicing the substantive position of either side and yet meeting the fundamental requirements. Thus our draft made it clear that renunciation of force would not prevent either side from peaceably pursuing its policies or deprive either side of the right of self-defense, but it would have application to the Taiwan area as well as general application.

d. With these two drafts before us we continued our discussion of the problem of renunciation of force during our 26th and 27th meetings and at our 28th meeting on December 1 you submitted a draft which was brief and couched in rather general terms. While this draft of December 1 did not entirely meet the requirements of the situation it did represent, we felt, a distinct step forward toward agreement. We were still disturbed, however, by the absence of specific reference in your December 1 draft to the Taiwan area or to the right of self-defense, and on January 12, 1956 we suggested two simple amendments to your draft designed to cover these two points.

e. In our meetings during the next six weeks much of our discussion centered around the two amendments which we had proposed at our January 12 meeting. You will recall that I drew a distinction between the claims and views of the two sides with respect to the situation in the Taiwan area and the question of renouncing force as an instrument of policy. Our proposals with respect to the draft declaration on renunciation of force were not designed, and are not now designed, to bind your side to an acceptance of our policies with respect to the Taiwan area any more than our agreement to such a declaration binds us to accept your policies respecting the Taiwan area. In an effort to reassure you that our proposed amendments did not seek to prejudice your policies with respect to Taiwan, we submitted on April 19 further proposals, revising those we had put forward on January 12.

f. Nevertheless, you declared our further efforts to meet your point of view unacceptable and in your arguments made it clear that what you objected to in our April 19 draft was really that it failed to prejudice the U.S. position—not that it prejudiced your side’s position. You made it clear that your side would consider acceptable only a declaration which permitted it to continue to exploit the threat of the use of force. Then on May 11 you submitted a new draft announcement which wiped out completely the fairly extensive area of agreement which had seemingly been achieved by the submission of your December 1 draft. Your May 11 draft, unfortunately, included every element of your side’s position to which we had expressed opposition together with new unacceptable points not previously put forward.

g. I have reviewed in some detail the course of our negotiations on renunciation of force because of my deep concern that we should not relax our efforts to reach agreement on this fundamental issue. Since the submission of your draft of May 11, 1956, which, as I have just pointed out, represented an unfortunate retrogression in the progress of our negotiations we have made no progress on this subject, and I have felt that you have not been sincerely interested in reaching agreement on it, but rather have attempted to obscure our discussions by bringing up subsidiary side issues. This tactic will not get us anywhere, for only by resolving satisfactorily the issue of renunciation of force can we expect to make progress on other topics under item two of our agenda. As I said at our last meeting I am prepared to discuss this vital issue as long as necessary to reach agreement, and when this has been accomplished we can go on to discuss other topics under agenda item two.

h. Mr. Ambassador, it is unfortunate that nearly two years after we had reached an agreement under agenda item one I should still find it necessary to come back to that item in these meetings. It is difficult for the American people and I must confess for me, Mr. Ambassador, to understand how six of the Americans whose cases we came here two years ago specifically to discuss can still remain in prison in spite of our agreement. Once again let me stress, too, that it is not only a matter of American inability to understand how this situation can exist, but a matter of strong and deeply felt indignation on the part of all Americans that it does exist.

i. As far as I can see, Mr. Ambassador, if there have been any measures taken by your government since the agreed announcement respecting the Americans who remain imprisoned in your country, they would seem to have had an effect opposite to that which was clearly set out as your intention in the agreed announcement. Otherwise, how can it be explained that during the whole year of 1956 and up to the present in the year 1957, not a single imprisoned American citizen has been released by the authorities of your country until his full sentence was completed? Is this by any stretch of the imagination an indication that measures have been taken to help these unfortunate citizens return to their country? Is it possible that not one American who remained in your jails after December 1955 could be credited with good behaviour which might have enabled the authorities in the normal course of events (regardless of the agreed announcement or of these discussions) to have released the prisoner a few weeks or months before the expiration of his sentence? On the record of the past year and a half, it is difficult to escape the conclusion, Mr. Ambassador, that the agreed announcement solemnly made between us has in no way expedited the release of the imprisoned Americans. If this is not so, I would appreciate it if you could cite one single measure taken by the authorities of your government to carry out the agreed announcement with respect to Messrs. Downey, Redmond, Fecteau, McCann, Wagner or MacCormack.

j. Release of these imprisoned Americans, all of whom have served many years in jail already, would have been an action not only in keeping with the letter and spirit of this agreed announcement but also a demonstration of sincerity and good faith on the part of your authorities. I profoundly regret that your side has not seen fit to take such action. Even now, however, release of these prisoners would have a most favorable effect on the atmosphere of our meetings here as we continue to discuss the other issues before us.”

2. Wang replied. He had listened carefully to the review I had made of the two year old negotiations on which I had tried to draw a balance sheet for the past two years. However, he could discover no new factors or elements in the new statement which I had made at great length and taking great time. The essential issue before us is an old one, that is, how are we going to settle disputes between our two countries and how tensions between us in the Taiwan area are going to be relaxed. In the course of the negotiations we have disputed at great length our respective points of view on this issue. Now let us recognize that we could not bring about agreement in respect to the positions of the two sides. If we could have done so, he would assume we would have already reached agreement long before. However, to repeat old arguments and old positions gives no help to the present discussions.

3. Wang continued. They have agreed to the idea of making a declaration by the two sides on the renunciation of force. Indeed, they have put forward a number of drafts of such a declaration. The objective of any declaration must be to find ways and means for settlement of disputes between the two countries in the Taiwan area so that tension there could be relaxed. The proposals my side has put forward under cover of so-called renunciation of force, and unreasonable position contained therein have long been refuted by his side. Our side’s attempts to get them to recognize the present situation of American occupation of Taiwan under cover of what we call right of self-defense are futile and wishful thinking.

4. Wang continued. During long discussions during the two years of these talks U.S. side has shown it does not have serious desire to improve Sino-American relations or relax tensions in the Taiwan area because our side continues to carry out a hostile policy toward China. Even in the course of these talks, our side has never ceased to create tensions in the Taiwan area and around the territory of his country. That is the fundamental problem which still exists.

5. If the United States is not going to give up a policy of hostility and subversion and aggression against the PRC, and indulge in empty talk of renunciation of force, this can only be termed as a deceiving tactic. He did not see how it would get us anywhere or give us any help in our present talk to repeat the old arguments made this morning.

6. Wang continued. I had suggested at the last meeting a new departure. However, he did not feel my statement this morning is prompted by the idea of a new departure.

7. Wang continued. Insofar as implementation of the agreement on the first item of the agenda is concerned, if anyone is dissatisfied it is his side. As is generally known, since the opening of the talks all Americans who desire to return have done so except criminal offenders serving prison terms, whereas on the U.S. side the Chinese who are imprisoned in jails there still remain in these jails without any change in their situation.

8. Wang continued. Our side consistently obstructs the return of the Chinese nationals who wish to return. Those persons who returned all spoke of the unreasonable obstruction by our authorities. Our authorities have employed many means of obstructing their return. One of the familiar patterns is when one of their citizens lets it be known that he wants to go, threats are made, political questions are asked, and he is even threatened with being sent to Taiwan or resort is made to inducements by offering him what is known as permanent residence. When the above threats failed, the next step is rough handling. The individual is detained for immediate deportation and is not allowed a reasonable time to prepare for deportation, including persons who are sick.

9. Wang continued. Hu Teh-yun, who was deported from New York in March of this year has experienced this suffering. Mr. Hu nearly lost his life as his serious stomach ailment was not properly cared for during his detention.

10. Wang continued. As to the practice of our authorities in putting Chinese students who want to go home in mental hospitals, Mr. Tseng Kuang-chih has provided a solid example. He must refute my explanation made at our last meeting on this case. Mr. Tseng Kuang-chih always desired to return. For this reason Wang gave me his name at last meeting. Yet instead of taking measures in accordance with the agreed announcement our authorities had to put him in hospital for fourteen months despite the fact that his studies and work were normal. Confining him for mental illness was evidently an act of reprisal. It also was to frighten other Chinese students who wanted to return. When our authorities failed to stop his leaving they retarded his departure.

11. Wang continued. In the case of Dr. Lin Lan-ying and Mr. Hsiao Chi-mei they also reported similar incidents.

12. Wang continued. He must point out this obstruction is the policy of our side and also violates our agreement and all humanitarian principles. He demanded an accounting 42 and 47 persons who still have not yet returned.

13. I replied that I regretted that I could not find in anything he had said here this morning the slightest indication that his government is willing to renounce its threat to use force if it could not otherwise obtain its policy objectives in the Taiwan area. This is the difficulty we faced when came here to find a method of peacefully settling our differences and the difficulty we still face. No amount of words or misrepresentation of the plain words in the proposals we have put forward can change this fact.

14. I continued. With regard to the first item of our agenda he entirely ignored the genesis and history of our talks on this subject. We are not here to put forth propaganda statements for the public which obscure the issue, but we are here to discuss on the basis of facts and, between the two of us, to settle these issues.

15. I have tried calmly, objectively and frankly to deal with him on the questions that we face. A statement such as “since the opening of these talks all the Americans who desired to return have done so except for a few criminals serving sentences” does not contribute to a settlement of this issue. Both of us perfectly well know when we came here we were discussing precisely those Americans who were in prison. I accepted the proposals and suggestions he made which he said would expeditiously resolve the problem. As I have again pointed out this morning, rather than resolve, it appears to have worked in the opposite direction. Since December 1955 not a single prisoner has been released even a day before the completion of his sentence. I again pointed out, entirely apart even from the agreed announcement, it is common practice even under normal procedure for prisoners to be given time off for good behavior. However, each of these prisoners has been held right up to the last day of his sentence. I asked him this morning how the agreed announcement could be said in any way, under the most liberal or strained interpretation, be said to have been applied to them. I asked him to cite one single measure taken by his authorities with respect to the six who still remain in his prisons. I still await his answer.

17. I continued. With regard to the Chinese in the United States his vague, unsubstantiated and erroneous charges of obstruction to their return does not obscure two basic factors. The first fact is the Chinese who desire to do so are steadily and regularly returning to his country. To the best of our knowledge not less than 353 have returned since the beginning of our talks here. The second fact is that the very agency which he suggested for the purpose has not called to our attention a single case of any obstruction to departure.

18. I went on to say that such statements as “On the United States’ side Chinese still imprisoned remain without any change in their situation”, as he was well aware, did not correspond to the facts. Every Chinese in our prisons who desired to do so has been permitted to go home without regard to length of sentence and without regard to his eligibility for normal parole and release.

19. I continued. As far as Mr. Tseng is concerned, I pointed out that less than a year and a half from his entry into the U.S., that is, in June 1949, he showed signs of and was treated for mental illness. I also pointed out to Wang that when Mr. Tseng asked to return to his country and it appeared that he was able to make a decision, he was given every assistance in doing so. The Indian Embassy with which he was in correspondence was kept informed of his case. Not only was he permitted to return but an attendant to care for him during his trip was furnished by the United States Government. As I said at our last meeting, rather than ill-founded complaints, an expression of appreciation for the care offered him would be in order.

20. I continued. As far as the Chinese returning to his country violating laws and regulations of the United States concerning the export of funds or regulations are concerned, all I can say is that they (no more than any other alien or American citizen) would not be permitted to do so. These long-standing laws and regulations are applicable to all persons. It is my understanding that his country has comparable laws and regulations which have been rigorously applied to Americans leaving his country. Dissatisfied as we may have been, I did not and have not raised this question with him. What I was interested in was that these Americans be permitted to return.

21. Wang replied with regard to the question of civilians he had already made it quite clear that U.S. residents are free to return without any obstruction. His position in this regard is exactly in conformity with the agreed announcement between us. Insofar as American civilian offenders are concerned the facts also have given evidence that of the 40 persons in this category at the beginning of our talks there now remain only six. We have noted that many Chinese are imprisoned in the United States. Of 34 persons whose names I gave him, there still remain 33 in prison.

22. Wang continued with reference to the question of an expression of their will, while these persons still are being kept in prison, he had made it clear that it was hard for him to believe persons in these circumstances are able to express their free will. The number of Chinese in the United States is very great. The number of Chinese students alone is about some 5,000 persons. The number of persons who have returned to his country is very small.

23. Wang continued. There are still many Chinese in the U.S. who desire to return and are not able to do so. Those who did return did not return easily but only after they have experienced all sorts of obstruction and all sorts of threats or inducements have they succeeded in coming home. Persons are even dealt with as mental patients without any reason at all and are handcuffed as criminals. No amount of words can cover up these facts. If any side is dissatisfied over this question, it is his side. It is his sincere hope that the American Government will change this obstructive behaviour so that all Chinese who desire to do so can return without encountering any obstruction.

24. I replied that he had made to me the statement that American residents in China are free to return. As I recalled it, this was precisely the same statement he had made to me on August 2, 1955. We then discussed the question of Americans in prison. I had entered into the agreed announcement with a clear understanding that that would have an effect on their situation and enable them expeditiously to return. As token and confirmation of my understanding, on the same day as the agreed announcement, he announced to me the names of ten persons who were released. Since December 1955 not a one has been able to return prior to the full completion of his sentence.

25. I went on to say that I had asked him this morning and again asked him in what way had the agreed announcement been applied to or in any way affected the ability to return of those persons since December 1955 or those six who still remained. I found not the slightest evidence of what the effect had been, except apparently for the worse.

26. Wang replied that the action we had taken on this question of civilians wholly conformed with what they had said in public. Nobody can ever point out an incident in which an American resident in China has been obstructed in returning. This even extends to those former prisoners of war who refused repatriation at the end of the Korean war. Whenever any one of this group indicated he had changed his mind and wanted to return, they did everything they could to help him realize his wish.

27. Wang continued. Nobody could ever cite any evidence that they had either in the past or at present called the American criminal offenders in prisons ordinary civilian residents in China. There had been no change whatsoever in their policy or practice with regard to this group of criminal offenders. Any allegations or charges which did not conform to reality are not acceptable to his side.

28. Wang continued. In dealing with such an issue thought must be given to the situation existing on both sides. Under circumstances in which Chinese residents in the United States continue to meet obstruction in departing one could not demand anything extraordinary on his side’s part. He had consistently been concerned with the question of improving the situation of residents abroad.

29. I replied that he would recall that when we were negotiating the agreed announcement he first asked for the inclusion of an exception for persons in prison. However, I had opposed this and finally we had agreed upon the elimination of any such reference. I had asked him and I again asked him in what way the agreed announcement had in the slightest affected American citizens in China as compared with the situation before its existence.

30. Wang replied that the matter is quite clear. They had never mixed up these two groups of Americans—ordinary American residents and American criminal offenders. This was quite clear and he presumed no such confusion will be consented in any other country.

31. I responded that he had not answered my question.

32. Wang replied that if I did not want to recognize a distinction between the two groups, that was unilateral thinking on the part of the U.S. If they had at that time settled on the basis that there was no distinction between ordinary Americans and American criminal offenders what would have been the use of entering into an agreement. They could have simply released everybody.

33. I responded by asking what the purpose of the agreement was.

34. Wang replied that the purpose of agreement was that ordinary residents and nationals of both countries could return to their countries freely. As a matter of fact, many Chinese in the U.S. who desire to return have as yet not been able to do so. This is a matter to which the United States government must give attention and carry out the agreement strictly. In addition to many Chinese imprisoned in the U.S., even innocent Chinese in the U.S. who have never offended against any law are still prevented from returning.

35. I replied that Wang said, before we ever entered into the agreement, what he called ordinary Americans could leave his country. But what he now seemed to be saying was that the agreed announcement did not and was not intended by his government to bring about any change in the situation which existed prior to the agreed announcement. All I could say was that this was flatly contradictory to my understanding and to the plain words of the announcement itself.

36. Wang replied that this was only an American statement. It was no use making such a statement. They always acted in accordance with the agreement. However, Americans who have offended against the laws of China must be dealt with in accordance with those laws.

37. As neither of us had anything further to say, I suggested September 5 for the next meeting. Wang countered by suggesting September 12 to which I agreed.

U. Alexis Johnson
American Ambassador

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–857. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Johnson. Received on August 12.