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

233. Letter From the Director of the Office of Chinese Affairs (McConaughy) to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson in Geneva¹

No. 65

[Washington,] February 11, 1957.

Dear Alex: 1. Developments in the issue of travel of newspaper men to Communist China have not been very favorable for us. The press is giving strong support to Stevens and Worthy. Apparently they have been able to whip up a certain amount of public support for their position. Worthy appeared on Eric Sevareid’s nation wide newscast Sunday afternoon February 10 and probably evoked quite a bit of sympathy for his position. Worthy left Moscow before the Embassy received our instructions, and he refused to submit his passport to the Legation in Budapest for restrictive endorsement. He also refused to say yes or no on the passport hearing which was offered him, placing his case in the hands of the Civil Liberties Union. When Worthy passed through Immigration at Boston his passport (by decision) was not taken up or restrictively endorsed. As I see it this will make it difficult for us to follow through in Stevens’ case. Look magazine plans to fight the case of Stevens and Harrington. Presumably there will be a passport hearing in Washington when Stevens returns to this country. Stevens was given the choice of a hearing in Moscow or Washington before restrictive action was taken, and Look magazine instructed him to choose a hearing in Washington, which will presumably take place a few weeks hence.

The decision to seek to restrict the passports was taken with some reluctance in view of the legal uncertainty but our hand was more or less forced by the press release of December 28² in which it was stated flatly that the passports would be made valid for return to the U.S. only. We did soften the proposed action by making it clear to our Embassy in Moscow that we did not require Stevens to come home. The instruction was to endorse the passport “upon departure from the Soviet Union, valid for return to the U.S. only”. This would enable Stevens to continue his assignment in the U.S.S.R. without interruption. However Look has elected to bring him home in late March in order to fight the case.

We are faced with a flat defiance of the Department by Worthy, and strong resistence short of defiance in the case of Look magazine and Stevens.

The Secretary took a very strong position in his press conference of February 5.³ We have been looking through the Geneva records for the best documentation that we can find based on Wang’s remarks. Of course we have the Wang statement about the handling of the prisoners being influenced by the state of relations between the two countries and the tie in between visits by American citizens and the “state of relations”. We have found nothing along this line dated later than September 28, 1955. I presume neither you nor Dave recalls anything later or more specific than this. I understand you got a copy of the Secretary’s press conference separately, but to make sure that you have it, a copy is enclosed herewith.⁴ We still hope to hold the line by voluntary action of the press, plus limited administrative action where necessary. No court action is being considered but we may run into difficulties even here with administrative passport action. The line up against us is pretty solid, especially since Senator Humphrey has entered the picture with a proposed Senate investigation, and since the American Society of Newspaper Editors has sent a resolution to the President.⁵

2. We anticipate that your instructions for the February 14 meeting will follow the usual line. We expect you to hammer hard at Wang on the subject of the interview of December 28 between O’Neill and Huang Hua in which Huang Hua virtually repudiates the Agreed Announcement by saying it has no application to the Americans while they are imprisoned. I sent you a copy of O’Neill’s report to Prague with my last letter of January 30.⁶ I hope you received it. As a precaution another copy of O’Neill’s report is enclosed herewith.⁷

3. Also enclosed is a working draft of a proposed new press release on travel to Communist China.⁷ It has been drafted largely with a view to clarifying the questions and ambiguities which seem to exist as a result of the events of last week. Bear in mind that this has not been approved and may undergo further changes if it is put out at all.

4. In answer to the question raised in your letter of January 28 from Prague,⁸ the Department did intend for you to have the copy of Instruction A–159 to Taipei⁹ as well as the NIE 43–56.¹⁰

5. We are working hard on a replacement for Osborn. The Embassy in London is very shorthanded now in the sections which cover both FE and Middle Eastern Affairs. It would be difficult for them to spare Ed Martin at all till June. I believe we could get him then. We have your telegram 389¹¹ agreeing to Dave Popper as an interim measure if we can get him. We intend to sound out Geneva on this today and will probably authorize you to take it up with Gowen while you are in Geneva this week. We fear that Geneva will feel that they cannot spare Popper. We will work out some solution in any event.

6. Judge Goodman in San Francisco is still considering the Wirin request for a passport to go to Communist China. The Judge has requested Justice to submit briefs on two questions as follows:

1. Whether the Court possesses the power to compel the Secretary of State to validate Wirin’s passport.

2. Whether the Court could compel the Government to elect either (a) to validate Wirin’s passport or (b) the dismissal of the indictment.

We armed Justice with quite a bit of material for the meeting which the Judge held on February 1. We endeavored to show that the Communists were using the Powell–Schuman trial as a lever to force official accreditation of an officer of the Court for activities in Communist China.

7. We are wishing you well and hoping that at the very least you will not have dental trouble to plague you this time.

Regards,

Sincerely,

Walter P. McConaughy¹²

1. Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva, US–PRC Talks, Misc. Docs. 1956–1957. Secret; Official–Informal.
2. See Document 226.

3. At a press conference on February 5, Secretary Dulles was asked to give his philosophy concerning the policy of denying American reporters passport authorization to travel to mainland China. He responded:

   “Well, my philosophy is, I think, in that respect the same as the President expressed at a recent press conference, that we don’t like to have American citizens used as a means of coercion as against the United States Government. As you know, of course, the Chinese Communist Government has for some time been trying to get reporters—preferably those it picked—to come into Communist China, and it has repeatedly tried to use the illegal detention of Americans in Communist China as a means of pressure to accomplish its ends in that respect. We do not think that it is sound philosophy to permit other governments—other regimes—to feel that it is profitable business for them to withhold and detain illegally and throw into jail American citizens so they can put a price on their release. If we allow that to happen in one case, then I think the safety of all Americans throughout the world is lowered by several degrees for a long time in the future. It is a fact that the Chinese Communists are trying to use Americans to accomplish that end, which makes us reluctant to do it. If the Americans were released, then we would, of course, give a new look at the situation.” (Department of State Bulletin, February 25, 1957, p. 301)

4. Not found attached.

5. On February 6, William Dwight, President of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, sent telegrams to President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, and Speaker of the House Sam Ray burn. The Association protested against Department of State opposition to travel by American newsmen to mainland China, and outlined three principles which should be respected by the government:

   • “1. Freedom for American reporters employed by American publications and news services to gather and write news or opinion in any country in the world with which the United States is not at war.
   • “2. No restriction on the passports of American citizens engaged in news writing and gathering so far as travel to any country with which the United States is not at war is concerned.
   • “3. No imposition of penalties by fine or imprisonment or revocation of right of travel upon American reporters who at their own risk choose to pursue their profession in any country in the world with which the United States is not at war.” (New York Times, February 7, 1957)

6. Document 231.
7. Not found attached.
7. Not found attached.
8. Not printed. (Department of State, Geneva Talks Files: Lot 72 D 415, Geneva, US–PRC Talks, Misc. Docs. 1956–1957)
9. Instruction A–159 to Taipei, January 15, discussed NIE 43–56 (Document 213) and the Embassy’s objections to some of the conclusions drawn in the paper. (Department of State, Central Files, 101.21–NIS/12–1056)
10. Document 213.
11. Telegram 389 from Prague, February 9. (Department of State, 123–Popper, David H.)
12. Printed from a carbon copy which bears this typed signature.