149. Telegram From the Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the Republic of China1
481. Your 681.2 Following Aide-Mémoire3 in reply Chinese Aide-Mémoire quoted reftel handed to Chinese Chargé today. While official delivery made here you may wish inform Foreign Minister substance text immediately insure maximum effect obtained from these reassurances.
“The Department of State believes that the misgivings expressed in the Aide-Mémoire delivered to the American Embassy at Taipei on January 25 regarding the Geneva talks with the Chinese Communists are unfounded.
As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aware from the full information it has received from representatives of the Department on the course of the Geneva talks, the first United States objective in entering into the conversations was to obtain the release of maltreated American nationals unjustly detained by the Chinese Communists, and some progress has been made on this item. Although Chinese Communist implementatoin of the Agreed Announcement of September 10 on the return of civilians in unsatisfactory, sixteen out of the twenty-nine Americans who were in jail or under house arrest when the talks started have been released. Ambassador Johnson is continuing to press for fulfillment of the Chinese Communists’ commitment to release the remaining thirteen.
The second United States objective was to obtain from the Chinese Communists a public renunciation of force, with particular reference to the Taiwan area. The Chinese Communists have given no indication thus far that they are willing to make such a declaration in any acceptable form. They apparently are willing to give lip service in a vague general way to the renunciation of force principle, but they refuse to apply it to the area of Taiwan. The United States representative pointed out that a renunciation of force declaration by [Page 308] them which did not include the area of Taiwan would have little meaning under existing circumstances.
The Department is unable to share the view that United States efforts to obtain a renunciation of force declaration from the Chinese Communists, and the expressed willingness of the United States to reaffirm its position on the renunciation of the use of force, would in any way prejudice the interests of the Chinese Government. A public renunciation of force declaration by the Chinese Communists, while it would not be self-enforcing and certainly might be violated by the Chinese Communists, would make renewed aggression in defiance of their commitment more hazardous for them. It would make their position following a new act of aggression even more indefensible than it otherwise would be. In the judgment of the United States it would greatly improve the prospects for obtaining additional international sanctions against the Chinese Communists in the event of a further breach of the peace by them.
If on the other hand the Chinese Communists refuse to make an unqualified renunciation of force declaration, they are also in a very vulnerable position before the world. Their unwillingness to eschew force to achieve their expansionist designs and their willingness to jeopardize international peace and security will be fully exposed. Such action could not be reconciled with their peaceful protestations.
Thus it seems to the Department that the interests of freedom cannot lose by a requirement that the Chinese Communists stand up and be counted on this issue. Either they make a commitment which at least will hamper them, or their aggressive intent is revealed for all the world to see.
The Department has made it clear that the conversations at Geneva do not imply any form or degree of diplomatic recognition of the Chinese Communist regime by the United States. The Ministry will recall that talks with the Chinese Communists were previously held at Panmunjom and at Geneva without any implication of recognition. There is no reason why the current Geneva talks should carry any implication which was not present in the earlier talks.
The United States is always ready to reaffirm its own dedication to the principle of the renunciation of the use of force. With the qualification that the right of individual and collective self-defense is unimpaired, the United States is prepared to reaffirm the application of this principle to any and all areas of the world. No reason is apparent why its application to the Taiwan area should carry any undesirable connotation.
The Geneva conversations of course have no bearing on the United States position on Chinese representation in the United Nations. The United States remains firmly opposed to the admission of Communist China to the United Nations. The United States remains fully committed to the support, in the United Nations and elsewhere, of the Government of the Republic of China as the only legitimate Chinese Government.
The Secretary of State is scheduled to visit Taipei on March 16 and 17. He welcomes the prospect of a full exchange of views with President Chiang and other representatives of the Chinese Government. He anticipates that advantage can be taken of this opportunity [Page 309] to go more fully into all aspects of the matters raised in the Aide-Mémoire of January 25.”
Robertson informed Chargé that points raised Yeh letter November 17 have been answered in numerous conversations with Ambassador Koo which deemed to suffice. Aide-Mémoire observations also have been fully answered orally. We consider informal oral exchange on such matters preferable where cordial basis of understanding exists, as with Chinese Government. However, Chinese Aide-Mémoire is being answered same form in view apparent Chinese desire for written reply.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–2656. Secret. Drafted and approved in CA.↩
- Document 138.↩
- Dated February 13; cleared in draft by Secretary Dulles and Phleger. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–1356)↩