826. Telegram 235 from Geneva1
235. From Johnson.
One hour twenty five minute meeting this morning mostly devoted to correspondents. Wang proposed and I rejected draft agreed announcement (full text by separate telegram). Under this PRC rpt PRC and USA “agreed to give permission, on an equal and reciprocal basis, for correspondents” to enter the respective countries. In rejecting I made exact statement in para 3 of Deptel 244 including last sentence. At close of meeting Wang stated they were going to release text draft agreed announcement but did not indicate timing.
Wang opened with long statement in hard tone referring to my “general repetition of worn-out arguments” at last meeting and general attempt to place blame for lack of progress on PRC, “consistently hostile attitude” of U.S. and leading into correspondents by reference to cultural exchange proposal September 22. 1956. “In spite of US obstacles” Stevens, Harrington and Worthy came to PRC and “completed their press coverage”. In spite of obstacles US youth delegation had also entered PRC and were being “warmly welcomed and with an abundance of good will”. “Does not this show that no official ban can prevent Chinese and American peoples from showing their demand for better contacts”. After nearly a year US had on August 22 under great pressure given permission certain number of correspondents visit PRC. “In same breath statement in entirely unreasonable terms refused accord reciprocal visas to Chinese newsmen. Subsequent statements have not altered this”. US August 22 statement set tasks for US correspondents in PRC and thus ulterior motive [Facsimile Page 2] and US undisguised attempt interfere in PRC internal affairs all too clear. None could conceive PRC would accept August 22 statement which disregards reciprocity and equality. PRC believes exchange visits of correspondents is a practical and concrete step to improving Sino-American relations and therefore proposes agreed announcement. Text meets need for equality and reciprocity.
In reply I “found it astounding” that he had “entirely reversed” position he had taken last year when he had stressed PRC was not asking reciprocity for admission correspondents. Also under US laws and regulations impossible to assure reciprocity. Therefore in light these two facts statement reciprocity included August 22 statement. Also found [Typeset Page 1415] it astounding that he now characterized entry of US correspondents many of whom were same men to whom they had previously extended invitations as undisguised interference their internal affairs. However, if they now desire exclude US correspondents that entirely matter their choice. PRC has not previously raised question of reciprocity nor has any PRC correspondent applied for admission to US. “If any journalist from your country desires to enter the US he is entirely free to make application to any Foreign Service post for a visa and it will be considered on its merits just the same as any other visa application”. “I am not in a position to enter into any agreement or understanding with you any more than I am with any other government that a full and equal number of correspondents be admitted to the US or that any particular individual will be granted admittance to the US. Neither do we make any such demand from your side. It is entirely up to your own decision as to whether you wish to admit any individual or any number of individuals”. Purport his subsequent statement was that Department’s statement on reciprocity in August 22 statement had entirely altered nature of questions and closed door on exchange visits of correspondents. Responsibility lies entirely with U.S.
I reiterated substance para 3 Deptel 244 and said that I expected they would consider application visas accordance their laws and regulations in same manner as US would do and that I would not attempt dictate their action any more than I would accept dictation from them our actions. If they decided refuse visas correspondents could not in any way shift responsibility to U.S. That was their own decision.
[Facsimile Page 3]Full report of meeting follows by telegram.
Next meeting October 10.
Note: Mr. Clough’s office (CA) notified 9/12/10:40 a.m. EMB (CWO)
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1257. Confidential; Niact; Limit Distribution.↩