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

827. Telegram 240 from Geneva¹

Geneva, September 12, 1957, 5 p.m.

240. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 70th today with statement that at last meeting I willfully tried present course two year talks in false light. My repetition old worn-out arguments was vain attempt shirk responsibility my side for dragging out talks. Facts before us are clear; namely with respect to agreement reached under first agenda item, my authorities during past two years have employed 101 means of obstruction to prevent those who can return from doing so and even those who have returned home met all kinds of obstruction.

2. Wang continued that on second agenda item he still protests our seizure of Taiwan and continued inadmissible interference in internal affairs. He added my side refuses to discuss Foreign Ministers conference, removal of embargo, cultural exchanges and peoples contacts. At same time threat peace by my side increases, tensions are continued by my side following hostile policy towards China. This is display complete lack of good faith toward his country. His side consistently worked for improvement Sino-America relations. With view to promoting tradition friendship, they have put forth proposals for cultural exchanges and human contacts at our 58th meeting.

3. Wang continued I will recall both sides agreed adopt measures promoting contacts between two nations. In an earlier move to demonstrate good faith, his government on own initiative permitted entry number US press representatives. They had believed that there was no reason why such a proposal of equality and mutual benefit should not be accepted. My side, however, refused discuss proposal and also refused permission enter. It thus clearly tells on which side Iron Curtain hangs after all. In spite of the obstacles, Stevens, Harrington and Worthy came to our country and completed press coverage. Recently the American Youth delegation visited China despite instructions and were warmly welcomed and with an abundance of good will. Does not this show that no official ban can prevent Chinese and American people from showing their demand for better contacts. Again does not this explain why US Government policy of preventing exchanges is bound to lead to an uproar and pressure on the part of the American people.

4. Wang continued. Nearly a year has passed since the proposal of the 22nd of September last year. On August 22 this year US Government made statement under great pressure permitting a certain number of newsmen visit China. In same breath press statement, in utterly unreasonable terms, refused accord reciprocal visas Chinese newsmen. Subsequent statements have not altered this. This press statement shows my government ignorance international practice and is an insult to China. That my government has an ulterior motive in sending newspapermen to China is all too clear. In its August 22 statement my government absurdly tried to specify the tasks of newsmen and instructed them to report on prisoners in China. This is virtually an undisguised attempt to interfere in Chinese internal affairs in telling US newsmen to serve American policy.

5. Wang went on. This move of the US Government, which it nominally passes for consent, in its true light it is a maneuver to dupe public opinion because no person of average intellect would conceive that China could accept such a move disregarding reciprocity and equality. His side absolutely cannot agree to unilateral decision of the US because it runs counter to desire of peoples for better relations and mutual understanding. They believe, however, that exchange of visits US newspaper correspondents is practical and concrete step capable of improving Sino-American relations. Based on their consistent policy will and in line with their proposal of 22 September 1956 he proposed that we discuss and adopt the following agreed announcement. (Text sent separately).

6. Wang continued. Adoption of above agreed announcement meets demands of peoples of both sides and meets desire of news correspondents for news coverage. Perusal of text of agreed announcement above will enable me to see that it promotes privilege of equality and reciprocity of both sides. He would like to hear any views I had.

7. I replied I would address myself first to statement he had made regarding the travel of correspondents. I said let me say I found it utterly astounding that he had entirely reversed position he took last year in this regard. I well recall that at time we discussed this last year he stressed to me that this invitation to American correspondents was not conditional reciprocal action by the US. I recalled that he made statement to me here and if I recollected rightly it was also made in public statement by his Government or press. Next point I wanted to make was that under our laws the US is not in any position to assure or guarantee full reciprocity. Therefore, in light of these two facts and in order that there can be no misunderstanding, the August 22 statement of Department of State made this fact clear.

8. I continued I found it incomprehensible and astounding that he now reversed his position and said that because reciprocity cannot be granted, he did not intend to permit the entry of American correspondents. I also found it astounding that he now characterized the entrance of American correspondents into his country many of whom had previously been in receipt of invitations from the authorities of his country, as an undisguised attempt to interfere in his internal affairs. If it is the decision of his authorities to reverse their previous position and exclude American correspondents, that was of course a matter of his own Government’s choice. As far as I was aware neither he nor his Government had ever previously raised the question of reciprocity nor has any journalist from his country ever applied for entry into the US. If any journalist from his country desired to enter the US he is entirely free to make application at any Foreign Service Post for a visa and it would be considered on its merits just the same as any other visa application. I was not in a position to enter into any agreement or understanding with him any more than I was with any Government, that a full and equal number of correspondents be admitted to US or that any particular individual would be granted admittance to US. Neither did we make any such demand from his side. It was entirely up to his own Government’s dicision as to whether he wished to admit any individual or any number of individuals.

9. Wang replied it is consistent belief of his side that exchange of visits is an important step toward gradually improving relations between two countries. The simple reason is that such mutual exchange of visits corresponds with the interests of both peoples and countries. Through such exchanges mutual understanding and trust can be expected to increase. It was in this spirit that his Premier made his statement at Bandung conference of 1955 that traditional friendship existed between Chinese and American peoples, and his Government has consistently worked in direction of improved relations between China and America. This attitude of his Government could be testified to by all proposals made during our talks of past two years. However, they found that insofar as matter was concerned, there are two entirely different attitudes and practices. In handling matters within realm of relations between our two countries, his Government has always acted in accordance with created international practice while he has always acted in contrary sense. In handling matters of Sino-American relations his Government has always worked to remove obstacles to intercourse and exchanges whereas US is consistently engaging in obstacles.

10. Wang continued, in their handling of Sino-American relationship they have always observed principle of equality and reciprocity, that is, the principle of mutual benefit whereas the US has always violated such a principle. He will just cite an instance. As I was probably aware, sometime during the Chinese Opera Company’s tour of Europe, it had received an invitation to stage performances in the US. His authorities, in observance of principle of reciprocity immediately followed by an invitation to an American company to give performances in China. As a result of obstruction on part of American Govt such an exchange could not be realized.

11. Wang continued. In order to develop mutual visits and contacts his govt in addition to 22 Sept proposal also on own initiative had given permission to American correspondents to visit China for news coverage. After stubborn obstructions and prohibitions on part of U.S. Government three American press representatives in person of Stevens, Harrington and Worthy succeeded in going there and completing their coverage. When they did so, they expected that following this step on their part the US would also take corresponding measures in this respect. Now the application of reciprocity in international intercourse is a matter of common knowledge familiar to everybody. He was afraid that I would not be able to quote any remarks of their side to effect that only American correspondents could enter China while no Chinese correspondents could enter US. Now the August 22 statement of my government says arrogantly in effect that only American correspondents are going to China while no Chinese correspondents will be allowed into US. Now anything in common between this statement and the friendly gesture indicated by his side? Such a haughty and arrogant statement by U.S. is an insult to Chinese people and Chinese people can in no way accept that.

12. Wang continued. Now it not his intention to enter into debate with me on US law. What he proposed and was interested in was mutual exchange of visits between Chinese and American people and mutual improvement of relations between two countries. It showed he recognized that no question can be resolved in international intercourse if we adopt an attitude of imposing one’s decision on the other. The unilateral decision of the US Dept of State has not only caused great indignation on part of people of China but has also met with condemnation international public opinion.

13. Wang continued that proposal he made this morning would offer reasonable solution to question of news coverage by two countries. It was his hope that we would be able to make some progress on this matter. He believed that this step would bring something good in our talks.

14. I replied that I found it impossible to understand his position on the basis for what he called indignation. Some time ago his authorities indicated they desired visits of American newspaper correspondents. The US has now rpt now agreed to validate passports for such travel. The US was certainly not rpt not imposing anything on him. If his government has now changed its mind and decided to not grant visas that was entirely a matter for decision of his government. I could not and would not attempt impose decision on him that his government grant visas for these correspondents.

15. I continued. He said that August 22 statement said that only Americans could go to China and no Chinese could go to the US. The statement does not say anything of the kind. It simply says that the US is not in a position to accord reciprocity which is a legal fact I could not change. Only now for the first time so far as I knew has question of Chinese going to US even been raised. As far as I knew we never received even an application for anyone to go to US. As I had told him here this morning, if any individual or number of correspondents makes application, their applications would be considered on same basis as any other application.

16. I continued that he had spoken of his government as always one which had worked to remove obstacles and that the US always created obstacles. I was astounded that in face of record here that he could make such a statement. Even before we came here we made it entirely clear that major obstacle was that of imprisoned Americans in his country. We entered into an agreement that was supposed to resolve that problem. Yet in the face of the very exact words of that agreement and whole history of our talks here, he had temerity to allege that agreement does not even apply to the Americans that we were talking about. And in face of this he proposed even entering into further agreement.

17. I continued he surely could not believe that I or my government was that naive. We entered into the first agreement and here two years later the six Americans still in his prisons stand as an indictment of his government for not honoring its commitments. If his government really wanted to remove obstacles instead of talking about it, and really would honor the principle of reciprocity, this agreement would long since have been carried out and this obstruction removed. Appealing to supposed violations by the US which have no basis in fact, in no manner relieves his government of obligation to carry out this agreement. Vague and unsupported statements do not constitute facts nor take place of facts. Facts are that the very agency which he suggested for seeing that agreement carried out has not called our attention to a single violation in any way.

18. Wang continued that when we got to question of return of civilians, the principle of looking after interests of both parties still applied. From time we began talks to present, it can be said that almost all American residents in China including criminal offenders have returned to U.S. Whereas in US prisons alone, US is still holding some 30 Chinese there. It would be a distorted interpretation of agreement if one of sides always sees his own interest disregarding others interests. On question of exchange of visits between peoples of two countries, his side always maintained a clear cut position.

19. Wang continued, as far as whole question of correspondents was concerned, the measures taken by authorities his country last year to permit entry was one matter. The statement of August 22 of my government denying reciprocity was another matter. This step altered nature of problem and closed door on exchange of visits of correspondents. If our authorities insist on August 22 statement then the responsibility for obstructing visits of correspondents entirely lies on U.S. If the idea of simultaneous visits by correspondents is accepted, then he cannot see why the statement proposed this morning cannot be accepted.

20. I replied that all I could say was that it was entirely up to him whether his government wished to permit the visits or not. I had not and would not attempt to dictate to him on that any more than I would accept dictation from him. If his government decided not to grant visas, he was certainly not going to hear any protest from me. All I could do was to express surprise at the change in his decision and express even greater surprise that he could allege that the United States had dictated his decision.

21. I continued. The question of who is to be permitted entry into a country is certainly one of the oldest aspects of sovereignty that exists. It is up to his government to decide whom it would have enter into his country just as it is up to my country to decide who will enter the United States. If any Chinese correspondent applies for entry into the US his application will be considered according to our laws just as I expect his government would consider applications in accordance with its laws.

22. Wang replied by expressing his surprise as to why we could not come to an agreement on such matters. He stated that wording in their proposed announcement was very clear. Nothing in it imposed anything on any person. In order to make their position on whole question clear they would find it necessary to make text available to public. He regretted that I could not find myself able to accept the draft proposal made this morning.

23. Wang proposed next meeting 10 October. I agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–1257. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution.