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

150. Telegram From the Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva¹

Washington, February 13, 1956—7:10 p.m.

1619. Guidance for February 18 meeting.

1. Refer to your statement at October 27 meeting,² repeating reasons US believes Communists have information concerning 450 missing servicemen. Wang stated at November 3 meeting he did not consider this proper subject for discussion at Geneva. He said such information should be sought from MAC in Korea. US accepted this suggestion in good faith and presented list again at Panmunjom on November 26. Communist representative declared that individuals held outside Korea do not come under authority of MAC and therefore irrelevant to discuss them in MAC. Also declared MAC has no connection with POW’s disposed of by PRC. Communist representative accepted list but to date has provided no information. US is entitled to reply either from MAC or from Wang, for this is one of practical matters at issue which Ambassadorial talks were convened to consider.

2. Inform Wang that in reviewing record of past several meetings, we still do not understand Chinese Communist position on renunciation of force. They agree neither side should go to war over its differences with other. But it appears that if hostilities should break out/Chinese Communists would expect deprive US of natural right of self-defense. Would not Chinese Communists exercise their right of self-defense if US should go to war in violation its commitment? Then how can Chinese Communists seek deny US identical right? Would not Chinese Communists consider that their forces stationed outside their borders had right to defend themselves if attacked?

3. Point out that Wang does not seem to understand US draft does not require either party to give up its position with respect to merits of its claims. Any draft declaration must be couched in such terms as not to discredit or prejudice claims of other side. Therefore Wang’s tirade at last meeting about alleged US occupation of Taiwan and lack of any US right defend itself individually or collectively in Taiwan area has no relevance to proper substance Agreed Announcement about renunciation of force. Wang’s tirade deals with merits of respective positions. It is premature to take up this issue of merits of respective positions before Agreed Announcement on renunciation force is issued. A discussion of merits of issues can only come after renunciation force by both sides.

4. FYI Our present draft is product of long and careful consideration and we are not disposed to alter it. If, however, Wang proposes amend renunciation force draft along lines suggested your 1476,³ state only that you will receive his proposed amendment, give it careful and serious study, and state US view of it later. Make certain Wang submits his formulation in precise and specific terms indicating where in draft his revised language would appear, so we will have complete text in form Communists would be willing sign. End FYI.⁴

5. Again protest vigorously continued Chinese Communist failure to live up to their obligations under Agreed Announcement. If Chinese Communists should release any of imprisoned Americans on occasion of Chinese New Year moderation of tone might be desirable.

6. Inform Wang that Immigration Service has now received replies from all its field offices and none is able to identify Yuan Jui-hsiang. Request additional information from Wang to assist further investigation, including date and place Yuan allegedly taken into custody by Immigration and alternate spellings Yuan’s name.

Hoover

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–1356. Secret; Priority; Limited Distribution. Drafted by Phleger and McConaughy; cleared in draft by Secretary Dulles; cleared by Sebald; and approved by Robertson.
2. See Document 85.
3. Johnson stated in this telegram, February 9, that he thought there was a possibility that Wang might agree to “some formula stating US–PRC disputes to be settled ‘only’ by peaceful means and preserving right of ‘self-defense’ between U.S. and PRC if declaration broken, including Taiwan area”. He requested instructions on the attitude he should take if Wang should offer any amendment along these lines or degree to which he should direct discussion in that direction. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–956)

4. McConaughy commented in letter No. 30 to Johnson, February 13, as follows:

   “We believe that you have Wang on a pretty weak wicket now. He is close to being on the prongs of a dilemma if we hold steady. His choices are (1) to accept our formulation; (2) to continue the talks indefinitely with all the inhibitions which that places on aggressive action by them; or (3) assume the responsibility for breaking off the talks, which would be a considerable onus and one which they presumably are reluctant to assume. The danger which the Secretary feels that we must avoid is the appearance of extreme inflexibility. If we appeared to adopt an absolutely rigid stance, the Communists after a break off might be able to transfer a good part of the onus to us arguing that our unyielding attitude on phraseology was deliberately designed to provoke a break. We want to avoid giving any plausibility to this sort of allegation. I would characterize the Secretary’s attitude toward the stance you should take as “firmness without rigidity”. He does not feel that it is necessary or desirable for you to propose any amendment or transposition in our proposal, but you do not close the door to serious consideration of any amendments proposed by Wang which do not do violence to the basic principles on which we stand.

   “You will be interested in a view which was expressed in the Saturday meeting [with the Secretary] and which did not encounter any challenge. This was to the effect that a renunciation of force declaration by the Chinese Communists which specifically included the general area of Taiwan would tend to compound the seriousness of the implication of any subsequent attack by them on Kinmen or Matsu.” (Ibid., Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva—Correspondence Re US–PRC, 1955–1956)

   Johnson replied in letter No. 22 to McConaughy, February 19, that he was “a little puzzled” by this remark and commented “I have always assumed that when we said ‘Taiwan area’ we were including the offshore islands and I believe that Wang thinks we do. It never occurred to me that we thought otherwise, and I do not believe I have ever given Wang any grounds for any other interpretation.” (Ibid.)