824. Letter 73 from Clough to Johnson1
Your letter of August 29 was very timely reaching us yesterday in time to permit me to comment on it prior to your meeting next week.
I anticipate as you do that Peiping will eventually admit only a few American correspondents. However, they may now seek to use the reciprocity issue as leverage on us to admit Chinese Communist correspondents to the U.S. As you will see from the enclosed copy of the Secretary’s August 27 press conference, the door to that possibility has been left ajar. So far no application for entry of a Chinese correspondent has been received.
The decision to authorize limited travel to Communist China by correspondents has greatly reduced the pressure on the Department over this issue. Some of the correspondents waiting in Hong Kong have criticized the wording of the Department’s announcement as predisposing the Chinese Communists to reject the proposal but for the most part the onus now appears to be shifted to Peiping.
I think you are wise in not wishing to take the initiative in raising the travel issue with Wang at the next meeting. Wang may raise it taking the same line as the original Peiping reaction to our announcement. But his position is an awkward one and you will have no difficulty in handling it. It is possible that a Chinese Communist newsman will apply before the next meeting to be admitted to the U.S., in which case you could simply reiterate our position that such individual applications would be considered on their merits and in the light of the applicable U.S. laws and regulations.
We are trying to get a copy of the new law on fingerprinting passed by Congress last week but may not have it in time to enclose with this letter. Briefly it authorizes the Secretary of State and the Attorney General jointly to waive fingerprinting requirements in certain cases for persons coming to the U.S. as temporary visitors. This will make it possible to admit visitors from iron curtain countries and even from Communist China without fingerprinting and without [Facsimile Page 2] declaring the individuals to be officials which as you point out would be out of the question in case of an unrecognized regime.
I enclose a copy of the order issued by the Federal District Court in the Powell-Schumann Sedition Case calling on the Chinese Communist courts for judicial assistance. This was sent by the court direct to Peiping. The Executive Branch of the Government did not participate in [Typeset Page 1411] any way, and legal opinion in the Department is that such action has no bearing on the matter of recognition. Once the necessary showing has been made as to the availability of witnesses and the substance of their testimony, the Judge will have to decide whether he would be justified in dismissing the case should the Department continue to refuse the defense counsel a passport for travel to Communist China.
We have been assured by Major Hoffman in the Attache Branch in the Department of Defense that Bob Ekvall will be permitted to stay in Paris until mid-January next year. We will have Dexter in Geneva before that time.
In regard to Hu Teh-yuin, the deportee Wang alleged “nearly lost his life” because a serious stomach complaint was not properly cared for during his detention, Immigration and Naturalization Service has informed us there is no record of Hu’s having complained of any illness during his detention prior to deportation. He surrendered himself in New York for deportation on March 12, and was held in the immigration detention center there for two days before being transferred to Los Angeles. The records of the center have been examined, and there is no record of his having reported any complaint. Between March 14 and March 16, when he boarded the President Cleveland in Los Angeles, Hu was confined at the Chula Vista camp. The records of that camp also show that Hu was in good health and registered no complaints. Medical service was freely available in both the New York camp and at Chula Vista. It is of course possible that Hu may have suffered from indigestion aboard ship, as this has been known to happen aboard the President line ships. However, if he did, he would have had the same medical attention that any other passenger would have received.
We have been considering the possibility of having Hammarskjold take up the cases of Downey and Fecteau in a letter to Chou En-lai, in line with your conversation with the Secretary General. This would [Facsimile Page 3] involve, so far as we have tentatively thought it through here, making the following points: (1) Downey and Fecteau were under the jurisdiction and authority of the United Nations Command at the time of capture; (2) they were, accordingly, entitled to repatriation under the Korean Armistice Agreement, even though civilians; (3) however, their existence was concealed by the Chinese Communists until after the negotiations on repatriation at Panmunjom had been concluded; (4) by the time their existence was disclosed, we had already established a contact at Geneva which was considered an appropriate forum for arranging the return of the two men; (5) the two men were covered by our Agreed Announcement of September 10, and it was anticipated they would be released in accordance with that agreement, hence no separate representation was made on their behalf under the Armistice Agreement; (6) in view of the long lapse of time since the Agreed Announcement and the continued failure to release the men, we desire to remind the Communists of their responsibility to repatriate them [Typeset Page 1412] under the Armistice Agreement; and (7) it makes no difference whether the men are released under the Agreed Announcement or under the Armistice Agreement, but until they are released the Communists will be in flagrant violation of both agreements.
Defense has sent out to the UNC instructions for a new meeting of the MAC on the subject of the missing personnel. We have already forwarded you a copy of the draft statement sent out for the use of the UNC. We do not know yet when the meeting will be held, but presumably it will be in the near future. We will let you know as soon as the results of the meeting are received, so that you will be able to plan your next presentation to Wang on this issue. Of course, if the occasion arises in the meeting on the 12th, you should restate our position on the missing personnel item, but it will probably be wise to defer an extensive, detailed presentation until after the MAC meeting.
I would appreciate your comments on the approach to Hammarskjold, particularly with regard to the tie-in with the Korean Armistice Agreement. We are of course consulting with the other people involved here in Washington, both in NA and Defense, and the points outlined above are entirely tentative at this point.
Mr. Robertson has been away for nearly three weeks on leave and I have just returned to the office from two weeks off. Mr. Robertson will be back in time to participate in the preparation of the instructions for your next meeting. We do not anticipate any new departures. It is interesting to note the importance placed by the British on continuation of the talks as indicated by Ed’s letter of August 20.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
- 1.
- Court Order
- 2.
- Copy of letter to Congressman Alger
- 3.
- FBIS re “Offer to U.S. Newsman Termed ‘Deception’.”
- 4.
- Press Release No. 460 dated August 13, 1957, “Personal Message from Acting Secretary to American Citizens Contemplating Travel to Communist China.”
- 5.
- Press Release No. 480 dated August 27, 1957—“Secretary Dulles’ News Conference of August 27, 1957”.
- 6.
- Two tickers dated Sept. 6 from Reuters
P. S. The News Division has just informed us that there is a ticker in advising that the Chinese Communists are allowing the students visiting Peiping to see the American prisoners held in Communist China. I am enclosing a copy and we will let you know by telegram of any further significant developments in this regard.
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal. A copy was sent to Martin.↩