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

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

Washington, August 22, 1955—3:52 p.m.

602. Your 571.²

1. (a) Word “nationals” has purposely been dropped minimize possible Chinese claim that we recognize in public document jurisdiction of PRC over Chinese in USA. Not recognizing PRC as legal government China we are unable agree that Chinese in USA are its “nationals”.

(b) No objection adding phrase “and the Government UK may also do so”. We purposely omitted phrase because we unable see that it would have any utility and we did not want to seem to think that it had.

2. Deptel 599.³ Delete word “residing” in first sentences in second and third paragraphs because “residence” has technical meaning not applicable to many Americans and Chinese within scope of arrangements.

3. After full consideration we believe that basic text our 599 is sound and should be pressed vigorously with oral understanding with Wang that word “promptly” is defined as indicated Secretary’s 569,⁴ paragraph 1. We would not be willing proceed to item 2 of agenda until all Americans actually released or acceptable time limit agreed upon.

4. If it should prove utterly impossible get Wang’s agreement to foregoing without an “understanding”, you are authorized indicate you would consider ad referendum an oral “understanding” which would cover both Wang’s jurisdiction point and definition word “promptly”. If we agreed to “understanding” it could not be private. It would have to be announced simultaneously with agreement. Text this “understanding” telegraphed separately.⁵

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2255. Secret; Niact. Drafted by McConaughy, Phleger, and Sebald; approved in draft by the Secretary and approved for transmission by Sebald.

2. Johnson commented on the new proposed U.S. draft in telegram 571 from Geneva, August 22, which reads in part as follows:

   “Believe it will not be possible avoid question ‘jurisdiction’. As I have previously said they obviously concerned we are attempting in some way reestablish extraterritorial principle for Americans in PRC.… My thought would be simply set forth in ‘understanding’ that ‘nothing in agreed announcement is intended raise any question of sovereignty, or jurisdiction over nationals of one country in territory of other and that it is assumed that measures referred to in numbered paragraph 1 of statement by Ambassador Wang contained in ‘agreed announcement’ and measures referred to in paragraph 1 of statement by Ambassador Johnson in ‘agreed announcement’ are taken within the framework of the laws and legal procedures of their respective countries.’” (Ibid.)

3. Supra.
4. Document 30.

5. The text, transmitted to Johnson in telegram 603 to Geneva, August 22, reads as follows:

   “Nothing in agreed announcements is intended involve any question of sovereignty or jurisdiction and it is assumed that measures referred to in the announcements are taken within framework of laws and legal procedures of their respective countries. It is understood that the PRC has completed the review of some unfinished civil and criminal cases involving Americans and that these Americans will be able promptly to depart for the U.S. It is understood that the review of all remaining civil and criminal cases involving Americans will be completed within (blank) weeks and that they will thereupon be able to depart for the U.S.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/8–2255)