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

840. Despatch unnumbered from Geneva¹

Geneva, November 14, 1957

SUBJECT

• China Talks—72nd Meeting

1. Wang Opened.
It had been more than two years since the two of us reached agreement on return of civilians but a majority of Chinese nationals are still prevented from returning to China. This raises a question of good faith. There are tens of thousands of Chinese nationals still in the U.S. Among these, students alone number more than 5000. These students left China many years ago and are now anxious to return to their homeland. Before we reached agreement our authorities were apparently detaining them. After we reached agreement our authorities are still trying to delay them by all sorts of obstructive tactics. At our meetings here he had given us 56 names. 50 of these have not yet returned. The U.S. has submitted 103 names of which 21 are yet to return. With regard to these 21 specific persons who have not returned the American side has failed to give an accounting. They have been continuously receiving letters from relatives of these unfortunate persons appealing for assistance to bring their sons home. He also takes note of the fact that of the 34 persons listed by the U.S. authorities, except in the case of one person, all the rest have not been returned. A sharp contrast arises between the failure of my authorities to carry out the Agreement and its implementation by his side. As the result of his side’s faithful implementation of the Agreement, all those Americans who wanted to return have done so including among those, a majority of the criminal offenders who have been returned at the expiration or prior to the expiration of their sentences. He felt it incumbent upon himself to stress once again that since the Agreement was concluded between the two sides, both sides should honor the Agreement. It is hoped that the American Ambassador will impress upon his government that the Agreement must be carried out so that Chinese nationals can return to their country without further obstructions.

2. I replied. We agreed at the outset of our talks here insofar as the return of nationals of either side were concerned that what we were discussing was those who desired to return. In fact, that language is incorporated in our Agreed Announcement on that subject. As he himself pointed out here this morning, there are tens of thousands of Chinese nationals residing in the U.S.A. They had been residing there even before his authorities took control of the mainland of China. Most of them have been residing there for many years. With respect to the students, it is entirely understandable that many of them do not desire to return. He seemed to take the position that because they have not returned or because some of their relatives desire to have them return, they are prevented from returning by some mysterious obstructions imposed by my authorities. The fact of the matter is very clear on the face of it that those who have not returned have not done so because they do not desire to return. As I had pointed out to him many times, we have no desire nor reason to detain people in the U.S. against their will. He and his authorities continued to make vague unsupported statements that these people are being obstructed in returning. It is incredible to me that he finds it possible to make such statements in the face of the facts. The facts are that the very agency which he himself suggested has not called to our attention a single case of obstruction. The Chinese in the U.S. have continued to be entirely free to depart for his country if they desired to do so. The sole question—let me say the sole determing factor—is their own desire. He had again this morning presented various figures. With regard to the 56 names he had submitted to me, I had told him in the past and I told him again categorically this morning, they and every other Chinese are entirely free to leave the U.S. if they desire to do so.

3. I continued. He had talked about the figure of 103 and again misrepresented that figure. As I had told him at the time I gave him those names, they were not names of persons who necessarily desired to return to his country. They were names of persons, and I repeated this, they were names of persons to whom orders were issued preventing their leaving the U.S. during the Korean war for reasons of national security. The fact that such orders were issued or that I gave him their names here was not the slightest evidence that they desired to return. It had no relation whatever to their desires. It was a purely preventative measure and, as I told him at the outset of our talks here, those orders have been entirely withdrawn. The fact that the orders were withdrawn and the group was free to return any time it wanted to do so is established by his own statement that eighty-two in fact have returned. With regard to those in prison I outlined to him the measures which we had taken to determine their desires after he rejected the first proposal that I had made in this regard, and those who desired to return have done so regardless of the length of their sentences.

4. I continued. These are the facts with regard to the return of Chinese from my country to his country. They are not vague, unsupported allegations; neither are they unilateral statements on my part. They are facts known to all the world; they are facts established by impartial evidence. If he continues to refuse to accept these facts, I can only draw my own conclusions as to the reasons.

5. I continued. The facts with regard to Americans in his country are equally clear. It is entirely clear and indisputable that of the 19 Americans in his prisons at the time of our Agreed Announcement and concerning which that Agreed Announcement said his authorities would adopt measures for expediting their return, after over two years six still remain in his prisons. It is a fact that since December 1955 not one American has been returned prior to serving the full sentence imposed upon him. It is the normal practice for every country of which I have knowledge to remit substantial portions of sentences for normally good behaviour of prisoners. Since having entered into the Agreement, these Americans seem to have been deprived even of this privilege. Thus, apart from the very serious and solemn question of obligation of his authorities under the Agreed Announcement, the position of these prisoners seems markedly to have worsened since the announcement of the Agreement. Apart from their obligations under the Agreement, the action of his authorities to continue to keep these persons in prisons is utterly in contradiction to professions of desire for settling of questions and improvement of relations between us. I and my government can only conclude this is a deliberate policy.

6. Wang replied. He made a statement this morning with regard to the tens of thousands of Chinese nationals residing in the U.S. including 5000 students, but this was not the same as saying that they wanted all these to return or that all wanted to return. What he had specifically made clear was that among these people, regardless of whether they were ordinary residents or students who were in the U.S. to acquire knowledge, many do desire to return to their homeland. That he had given me a limited list of specified persons explained the fact that these persons desired to return to their country. All these persons desired to return to their country. All these persons have expressed a desire to return, but have encountered difficulties in doing so. From the experiences of those Chinese who succeeded in returning recently is explained the fact that there exist various barriers and difficulties preventing their return. Some of those who have returned complain that once they made known their desire, they got in trouble with our authorities, who had them interrogated. There are cases in which my authorities tried to press persons who made known their desire to go to his country to go to Taiwan instead. There are cases in which persons whose desire to return to his country were given such short notice they got into trouble in making preparations to leave. There are cases of persons departing who have had their property sequestered. These circumstances and the possibility that they might encounter in departing some form of difficulty inhibited their nationals from making up their minds to return to his country.

7. Wang continued. With regard to the 103 whose names I submitted, the statement I gave this morning admitted the fact that those persons were prohibited from returning to his country. The fact that my authorities issued the order clearly explained the fact that there were persons prevented from returning. It was still a fact that 21 still were not able to return. Considering the points he had made this morning, he therefore again requested me to impress on my government to take measures necessary to remove all these obstacles so their nationals can in fact exercise their right to return to their country without obstruction.

8. I replied. It seemed to me that on the one hand he was complaining that we made persons go too quickly and on the other hand we prevented them from going. All I was asking of Wang—all I ever asked of Wang—is that Americans in prison who unquestionably desire to be released and return be permitted to do so.

9. Wang indicated he had nothing more to say.

10. I said I had something more to discuss this morning. I then read the following prepared statement:

“Mr. Ambassador, you will recall that at our 23rd and 24th meetings I discussed with you the question of American military personnel still missing from the Korean hostilities and concerning whom we had solid grounds for believing that your side must have information. You will recall that it was your position at the time that this matter should be taken up in the Military Armistice Commission in Korea. I pointed out that we were not concerned as to where the information was furnished but only in obtaining the information.

“I was pleased and encouraged that when, in accordance with your suggestion, the matter was again taken up by the United Nations Command in the Military Armistice Commission, your side accepted the lists of personnel which they had so long refused and promised to investigate the matter. I and my Government hoped that at long last your authorities had decided to liquidate this question by furnishing the requested information. However, this hope was sorely disappointed when at the 69th meeting of the Military Armistice Commission in February of last year the lists were returned with simply the notation, in the overwhelming majority of cases, of ‘no data’. In a lesser number of cases your side finally admitted that the men had been prisoners of your side but attempted to account for them by stating that they had escaped.

“Mr. Ambassador, as pointed out by the United Nations Command representatives at the 79th meeting of the Military Armistice Commission last month this information is simply not credible. Not a single one of these men has ever returned to our side and if they had in fact at one time escaped they must therefore have been recaptured or killed by forces of your side. If such was the case, forces of your side must have some record thereof and I cannot understand why they continue to refuse to furnish it to us. I also find it astonishing that your side would list as having escaped a man such as Capt. Harry Moreland who, as I pointed out in our 64th meeting last January, had both legs amputated. I find it incredible that your side would be able to say that it had no data concerning a man such as Capt. Joseph S. Long, Jr. of the United States Air Force, who, a broadcast from your side in April 1952 said, was alive and a prisoner.

“However, when such facts were pointed out at the 79th Military Armistice Commission meeting last month, representatives of your side resorted to entirely irrelevant polemics rather than making any serious effort honestly to discuss the problem or to furnish the requested information which they have recognized is their obligation under the Korean Armistice Agreement.

“Mr. Ambassador, my purpose in again raising the question with you here this morning is not to make accusations or to engage in polemics, but rather to seek the cooperation of you and your authorities in liquidating this problem.”

11. Wang replied. With regard to the question of missing personnel in the Korean War that I had again brought up this morning, he had made their attitude very clear in previous meetings. He did not consider this subject within the terms of reference of our talks. He therefore did not feel it was necessary to give a reply to me this morning.

12. I replied whether he considered it within the terms of reference or not, it is a practical matter at issue between us. It is not a problem that can be solved by sweeping it under the rug or doing nothing about it.

13. Wang said he had nothing more.

14. We agreed that our next meeting would be held on December 12.

U. Alexis Johnson
American Ambassador

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/11–1457. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Received on November 18.