442. Telegram 1363 from Geneva1
1363. From Johnson.
1. Three hour twenty-five minute meeting this morning.
2. I opened with long statement on renunciation of force closely following outline Deptel 1465. After relatively cursory study my draft Wang rejected it, renewed charges US occupation Taiwan, and particularly centered attacks my amendments as renewed effort by US obtain PRC recognition validity US collective defense arrangements Taiwan area. He ended with prepared statement renewing charges US stalling and proposing this and subsequent meetings be “open”. (Later in response questions he indicated that by “open” he meant release of communique giving full substance following each meeting).
There followed long give and take during which I stressed apparent significance failure their side during three months since my Oct. 8 proposal to agree to specific inclusion Taiwan in any statement, as well as pressed him on willingness include in statement recognition as general principle right individual and collective defense. There was long give and take toward end of which apparently recognizing weakness their public position on inclusion specific mention Taiwan, he stated would consider our amended draft if reference individual collective [Typeset Page 637] self-defense removed. I expressed willingness consider any alternative formulation for inclusion [Facsimile Page 2] this principle and emphasized weakness their position in refusing include it in public statement while admitting to validity during our discussion. However, was unable to shake him on this.
I then made statement on implementation accordance para 6 Deptel 1465, brief statement on Liu, and statement accordance Deptel 1468.
At close of meeting after I repeated my refusal to agree to open meetings he said “would leave this question open for time being” and referred to his statement at last meeting on issuance unilateral public statement on discussion agenda item 2, indicating that would probably make such a statement. In reply my questions as to where, when and text, he said “this matter has not been decided so far”. I, of course, indicated that if they issued statement we would feel free make reply.
Suggest that if they do issue statement, text my opening statement at today’s meeting would be good reply and am telegraphing full text separately “Niact”.
Next meeting Jan. 19.
Note: Advance copies to SS and FE 11:55 am, 1/12/56 (DES)
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/1–1256. Confidential; Niact; Limited Distribution.↩