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

49. Telegram From Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson to the Department of State¹

Geneva, September 6, 1955—2 p.m.

678. Two hour and twenty minute meeting this morning. Wang opened with statement on Americans granted exit permits.²

I renewed request for time limit on release imprisoned Americans, pointed out still none able depart, measures taken by my government without condition permit Chinese depart, 83 departed since July 11, etc.

Wang repeated his former line this subject from prepared statement and after some give and take along familiar lines I asked series questions on “expeditious” confirmation imprisoned Americans whose cases reviewed would be able promptly depart on issuance “agreed announcement” etc to which he made replies identical with his previous statements.

I then indicated I was prepared recommend my government authorize me accept “agreed announcement” and desired compare texts with him. I gave him text³ which I pointed out represented my understanding our discussion last meeting, introduced no new changes, and hoped we could issue after next meeting.

After studying my draft and discussion of a few small nitpicks of which he accepted my version, discussion centered around “now” in para one PRC section and “in any such case” in paras two both sections, he requesting deletion. I pointed out he had raised no question on “in any such case” last meeting, and he noted I had not called their attention to “now” at last meeting.

Only voiced objection to “in any such case” was that it was clear without it and phrase was therefore “unnecessary”. In reply my direct question said did not object in principle to phrase and I pressed my advantage to maximum. His argumentation was weak and he several times appeared to waver toward accepting phrase but appeared he had received instructions since our last meeting and he was not clear whether he was able concede.

Opposition to “now” in PRC section was very much stronger, implication of word not in accordance facts as far as PRC concerned, could never accept this word etc. I pointed out always included our drafts, while not in PRC drafts, they had not at last meeting or previously specifically raised issue, did not do violence to even their interpretation facts etc. Clearly his instructions on this very categorical and although I used to maximum my very strong negotiating position was entirely unable shake him.⁴

He was very anxious propose next meeting be Saturday⁵ and I agreed.

[Johnson]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–655. Confidential; Niact.
2. Ambassador Wang stated that nine Americans who had applied for exit permits could now depart, that two other Americans would be granted exit permits if they applied for them, and that another American was expected to be able to complete the settlement of his business affairs and depart within 2 or 3 months. The substance of the statement was released to the press by Wang and Johnson and is printed in Department of State Bulletin, September 19, 1955, p. 457.
3. Johnson transmitted the text to the Department in telegram 682 from Geneva, September 6. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–655)
4. Johnson recommended in telegram 684 from Geneva, September 6, that he should insist on retention of “in any such case” but agree to the deletion of “now” from both sections, commenting that the reason for its insertion, to show that the declaration was subject to termination, was no longer valid since the statements were to be unilateral, and that the reason Johnson had retained it in later drafts, to show that Americans were free to depart as of the date of the announcement, was no longer valid, since U.S. insistence on this had been dropped. (Ibid.) Department concurrence with these recommendations was sent to Johnson in telegram 693 to Geneva, Septembers. (Ibid.)
5. September 10.