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

835. Despatch unnumbered from Geneva¹

Geneva, October 9, 1957

Subject

• China Talks—71st Meeting

1. I opened 71st with following statement:

a. “Mr. Ambassador, in our last meeting you made the allegation that while your government has been the one which has always worked to remove the obstacles in the path of improvement of relations between our two countries, the United States Government was always creating such obstacles. I expressed my astonishment that you should feel it possible to make such a statement. It seems to me that the record of our 70 meetings since August 1, 1955 has demonstrated very clearly that it has been the attitude adopted by your authorities which has placed serious obstacles in the way of the improvement of relations.

b. When our talks first began I emphasized the vital importance attached by my government, and by the American people, to the question of the release of Americans imprisoned in your country. The first six weeks of our negotiations were taken up entirely with this subject and were culminated in the issuance of the Agreed Announcement of September 10. It was, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the understanding of my government that this Announcement applied to all Americans in the territory controlled by your authorities, including those who were imprisoned. No other interpretation can logically be placed either on the wording of the announcement, or on the negotiations which led up to its issuance.

c. It was our sincere hope that, with the issuance of the Agreed Announcement, a solemn commitment had been made by your authorities to eliminate one of the major sources of friction between our countries. Unfortunately, we were to be disappointed in this hope. Hardly had the Agreed Announcement been issued than you began to interpret it in such a way as to distort the clear meaning of the words used, and thus to try to excuse the failure of your authorities to implement the Announcement. You lost no time in making the specious argument that the term “expeditiously” must be interpreted in the light of the behaviour of the prisoners and of the seriousness of their alleged crimes, and so forth.

d. An even more serious distortion of the Agreed Announcement has been the argument which you have put forward during the last two meetings, as well as on previous occasions, that the announcement applies only to so-called ordinary Americans residing in China and not to those who are alleged to have committed offenses. Neither the words of the Announcement itself, nor the record of the negotiations leading up to it, support this argument. The clear intention of the Agreed Announcement was to bring about the expeditious release of all Americans who were against their will prevented from leaving your country, including most obviously those who were imprisoned. By their failure to implement this clear intention, your authorities deliberately sought to deprecate the value of agreements between us. Your authorities have thus been careful to maintain what they full well know is one of the principal obstacles to the improvement of relations between us and to progress in these talks. No amount of words can change these facts or obscure the full responsibility of your side.

e. In all frankness, Mr. Ambassador, I must also make the same indictment of your side on the question of the renunciation of the use of force. Again it has been the intransigeant attitude adopted by your authorities which has prevented us from making progress on this vital matter. We dealt at considerable length at our meeting in August with this extremely important question and I do not propose to review today the various arguments which I put forward then. I do wish to stress, however, that in the view of my government the reciprocal renunciation of force with respect to the Taiwan area is a step which is fully as essential today as it was when these talks began more than two years ago. I earnestly wish to point out once again, Mr. Ambassador, that the refusal of the authorities of your country to renounce force and to terminate their military threat in the Taiwan area remains a fundamental obstacle to the attainment of lasting peace. The removal of this obstacle certainly merits our full attention for whatever time is necessary to achieve results. Introduction of subsidiary issues by no means serves the interests of our two countries nor of the world.”

2. Wang replied. He had repeatedly pointed out during the course of the talks that in order to improve relations between our two countries, it is necessary that obstacles lying in their path must be removed. I had this morning referred to the record of our talks of the past two years. He might say that this record does not give any indication that the U.S. is making efforts to remove such obstacles in our relations. From this record of our talks it can be clearly seen that their complaints against us have been based on facts. They consider that relations between two countries must be based on equality, mutual benefits and reciprocity. The U.S., however, has consistently denied this basis. The principle of equality and reciprocity has been generally accepted as one of the bases of international relations. He did not see any reason why our side should continue to object to it.

3. Wang continued. Let us take the question of returning civilians. His side has faithfully carried out the agreement of September 10, 1955 while my side has not, thus violating the principle of reciprocity. Now all those ordinary American nationals in China who desire to return have left. Even among the American prisoners, 34 have been released in advance or at the expiration of their terms. Yet Chinese in the U.S. who desire to return continue to encounter obstacles and persecution so that many cannot return. Nor do those Chinese prisoners in the U.S. enjoy similar lenient treatment as do those U.S. prisoners in China.

4. Wang continued. Next he wanted to take up the visits of newspaper correspondents. Last year his government took the initiative in admitting American correspondents. All those who wanted to do so did not succeed in coming due to obstructions placed by the U.S. Government. Three went and they succeeded in completing their coverage. On this score the U.S. has again failed to observe the principle of reciprocity. On August 22 my government had announced permission for American correspondents to enter China but flagrantly refused to announce permission for Chinese correspondents. The draft agreement introduced by his side at the last meeting called for reciprocity for newsmen to come and visit on a reciprocal basis. This was rejected by my side.

5. Wang continued by saying that on relations between China and the U.S. and on such concrete matters as cultural exchanges, human contacts, and visits of newspapermen, our side has violated the principles of equality and reciprocity, thus showing contempt of the principles in international relations. They consider that in Sino-American relations no question can be settled if one departs from this principle. In this respect they have consistently insisted on equality and reciprocity, and they resolutely demand that our side subscribe to this principle. Otherwise their side cannot unilaterally undertake commitments.

6. Wang continued. With regard to the renunciation of force, his position has always been that the relaxation of tension in the Taiwan area constitutes one of the vital aspects in the improvement of relations between China and America. Previously they had dealt at great length on the importance of this issue. The fact before us is that the Chinese territory of Taiwan is under the direction of the U.S. and peace in the Far East is disturbed by the attitude of the U.S. Government. His side has repeatedly put forward their views with regard to how this situation can effectively be resolved. It is now up to the U.S. to put forward concrete opinions if the U.S. is genuinely willing to respect the sovereignty of China and genuinely desires to contribute to peace in the Far East.

7. I replied. He had again this morning as in the past spoken much of the terms equality and mutual benefit and reciprocity. I told him when we came here more than two years ago my interest and the interest of my government is in substance rather than words. At his suggestion we entered into an agreement more than two years ago which was supposed to embody the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and reciprocity. I could not see that that agreement has in any way insofar as implementation by his country is concerned demonstrated either equality, mutual benefit, or reciprocity. The evidence of this is not the unsupported statements of myself and of my government; the evidence is the impartial observations of the third parties named in that agreement to determine whether it was being carried out in good faith. With respect to his country the UK is witness to the fact that it has not even been able to carry out the subsidiary provision of that agreement. The UK is witness to the fact that for more than two years there has not been even any pretence of releasing the imprisoned persons who were subject to that agreement. Prisoners are now being held up to the very last day of completion of their sentences. I cannot see the slightest evidence of what he termed lenient treatment, much less any evidence of carrying out the terms of the agreement permitting these people to return to the U.S.

8. I continued. On the other hand the Government of India which was named by him in the Agreement with respect to its operations in the U.S. has not yet called to our attention a single case of obstruction to the return of any Chinese who desires to return to his country. The question, he full well knew, is not whether a majority of Chinese residing in the U.S. have returned to his country or whether a minority have returned. The question is whether those who desire to return have been and continue to be free to do so. The Government of India and the Indian Embassy in the U.S. are witness to the fact that they are able to do so.

9. I continued. Thus it is clear, not on the basis of my words but on the basis of impartial evidence to whose benefit that agreement has operated. However, apart from all this, his government full well knew even before we came here that the question of Americans imprisoned in his country and prevented from returning to the U.S. was one of the major obstacles to the improvement in our relations. The very terms of reference agreed upon by our two governments for these talks are witness to that fact. I have not and do not ask him to agree as to whether this position is right or wrong, but what I have asked him to recognize is that it is a fact. It is a fact of fundamental importance and a fact which is readily within the control of his government. I agreed to the proposal which he made for our agreed announcement on the subject on the understanding that his authorities would be willing and able to remove this block to the improvement of our relations. In spite of all this his authorities deliberately are maintaining this block to our relations. It is entirely impossible for me to understand why they continue to do so. It is entirely impossible for me to reconcile this undisputed fact with progress for improvement in relations and improvement in these talks. I had most earnestly in every way I could think of attempted to make this clear to you.

10. I continued. With respect to correspondents it is a similar situation, that is, is his interest in words or is his interest in substance? I failed to see the ground for his complaint. As far as I knew no newspaper correspondents from his country had ever applied for entry into the U.S. In fact until a few weeks ago he never indicated any interest in the subject. As I told him at the last meeting, if it is the desire of any newspaperman to enter the U.S. his application will be accepted at any foreign service post throughout the world. His application will be considered on an individual case basis in accordance with our laws and regulations. If his authorities desired to approve or deny the applications for visas which have been made to him by U.S. correspondents whose passports have been validated for travel to his country, that is entirely a matter of their choice. If they wanted to deny all of them on a blanket basis or deny or approve them on an individual basis, that was entirely a matter of their choice. As far as the U.S. was concerned, under our laws, applications must be considered individually. I could see the basis for his complaint about this position or why it should prevent exchanges of newsmen.

11. I continued. As far as the question of renunciation of force was concerned, the situation still is that his authorities refuse to agree to an unconditional renunciation of force such as I had proposed. Their position still appears to be that they are asking the U.S. to surrender to their point of view with respect to the Taiwan area even while they continued to use the threat of force. I could not see in that position the slightest element of any willingness to settle disputes by peaceful negotiation or the slightest element of equality, mutual benefit, or reciprocity.

12. Wang replied. I had spoken a lot of words concerning mutual benefit, equality and reciprocity. All these words sounded quite all right to him whereas in substance the record of our talks shows that in the course of these talks I had always been telling the Chinese government to do this and to do that whereas the U.S. Government has never indicated its willingness to make any effort. Insofar as the agreement on civilians is concerned, the record shows that the U.S. side has always been telling the Chinese Government to take actions whereas the U.S. itself has not been taking actions to implement that agreement. Insofar as the release of prisoners is concerned according to my way of stating the matter it would seem that only the question of American prisoners is concerned while there is no question of Chinese prisoners. Such allegations do not conform with the actual situation.

13. Wang continued. With respect to the visit of newspaper correspondents, the official statement of my government indicated that it was going to allow a certain number of American newsmen to go to China while it does not even try to conceal its refusal to give reciprocal treatment to Chinese newspapermen going to the U.S. All this shows that lip service to reciprocity does not mean reciprocity actually. With regard to the question of Chinese going to the U.S., this is entirely a matter for the Chinese correspondents to decide on because his government has never tried to prohibit or prevent the visits of correspondents as my government has done. Thus the Chinese correspondents can make their own decision on this matter. The question does not depend on the Chinese Government or on the Chinese correspondents but it is up to whether the U.S. is willing to observe the principle of reciprocity and equality.

14. I replied. Then apparently there was no problem. Apparently no Chinese correspondent desired to go to the United States as no one has made application to do so.

15. Wang continued. He had made it clear that it was not a question of this or that correspondent but was a question of whether the U.S. is going to observe the principles of equality and reciprocity in international affairs. They could not in any way accept the position of the U.S. which unilaterally refused to accord equality and reciprocity to Chinese correspondents. This position violated all standards of international behaviour.

16. I replied. We simply made it clear in view of the history of this question and in view of the legal framework in which we must operate that we could not be bound as a matter of right to permit, or to give advance approval, to a number of Chinese correspondents corresponding to a number of American correspondents which they might decide to admit to their country. If and when any Chinese correspondent makes application to go to the U.S. we are entirely willing to consider his application. He himself had said that application for visas to his country would also be considered individually.

17. I continued. United States correspondents travel to most of the countries of the world including those which have social and economic systems similar to his own, and correspondents from those countries travel to the U.S. In no case did I know of any agreement on reciprocity or equality nor has the U.S., for those countries, insisted on any such agreement. If they were to do so, we would have to give them the same answer I gave him here.

18. He then indicated he had no more to say.

19. I did likewise and suggested we meet again on November 7. Wang said he would prefer November 14. I agreed.

U. Alexis Johnson
American Ambassador

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/10–957. Confidential; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Johnson. Received on October 17.