FE files, lot 55 D 480, “United Nations”
Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Bacon), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Drumright)
- Subject:
- Chinese Representation in the Security Council
New York’s 581, April 5, mentions some of the possibilities on Chinese representation which may develop in the Security Council under Vishinsky’s chairmanship. It concludes with a plea that technical reinforcements be rushed to New York. Len Meeker (L/UNA) and Betty Gough (UNP) flew up this morning. Eric Stein (UNP) who works on the Security Council did not go.
As you know, this whole subject was discussed by phone with USUN by UNP last week (Memorandum to CA, April 2).
It is understood that the paragraph in the telegram beginning “common sense and regard for truth” refers to Ambassador Lodge’s intention to use the veto on the Chinese representation question if necessary.
Our voting margin in the Security Council on the Chinese representation question is so large that there should be little cause for concern on that point. If Vishinsky should rule that Tsiang was not entitled to represent China, the ruling undoubtedly would be so phrased as to require our side to come up with seven votes to over-turn it. As the ruling would be so clearly out of order on the part of the chairman, we should be able to count upon support even from those Security Council members which recognize the Chinese Communists. Undoubtedly, however, Vishinsky, who is a connoisseur of tactics in the Security Council, can make the situation very difficult—if he chooses.
In this connection it is interesting to note that Ambassador Lodge, in New York’s 571 of April 2,1 after commenting on the recent affability of Soviet delegates remarked “it is also noteworthy that the Soviet gesture on behalf of the admission of Communist China could not possibly be more perfunctory. They content themselves with a routine statement, never make a motion, or really agitate the thing at all.” It is accordingly possible that Vishinsky on Thursday may not in fact make a determined drive to displace Dr. Tsiang but may content himself with a sharp statement for the record and with addressing Dr. Tsiang not as “the representative of China” but as “Mr. Tsiang” or some less pleasant equivalent.
- Not printed (611.61/4–254).↩