FE files, lot 55 D 480, “United Nations”
Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Bacon), to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson)
- Subject:
- Chinese Representation
Attached are two telegrams1 reporting on developments on the Chinese representation situation. From these telegrams it appears that we have the choice of (a) accepting last year’s moratorium formula which involves “postponing” consideration of the question “for the current year”, or (b) recommending that the Secretary send a personal message to Eden asking the United Kingdom to accept a formula under which the General Assembly decides not to consider the Chinese representation question.
Background:
Following a suggestion by the Chinese Delegation in New York, the US proposed to the United Kingdom in August 17 agreement upon [Page 784] a moratorium formula under which the GA would decide not to consider any proposals on Chinese representation. The UK Embassy replied in effect that this formula presented difficulties but that the UK would probably be prepared to accept last year’s formula under which the GA would decide to postpone for the duration of the session in the current year consideration of all proposals on Chinese representation. Ambassador Lodge then asked for time to negotiate with the UK using our position on the Cyprus item as a bargaining point. New York’s 217 indicates that Lodge now feels that he has gone as far as he can and that “my guess is that this deal will have to be made between you and Eden.” London’s 1238, September 9,2 does not mention Chinese representation but reports that the UK now estimates that it will lose the fight to keep Cyprus off the agenda. Accordingly, our London Embassy comments that while the UK hopes that the US will vote against the inscription of the Cyprus item an abstention will not have serious unfavorable impact with the UK.
Comment:
From the above it appears that the UK does not intend to bargain on the basis of Cyprus and that if we are to try for a better formula on Chinese representation than last year, the Secretary personally wall have to be involved. The question remains: Is there enough prospect of success to justify involving the Secretary and causing further delay in reaching agreement with delegations in New York on procedural tactics? Use of phrases such as “postpone” and “current year” are psychologically objectionable both in the US and in China. In the past, however, these phrases have not caused us trouble as they have been offset by a strong speech by the Secretary giving our position. If the GA terminates, instead of adjourning, in December, omission of reference to the “current year” will not in fact prolong the duration of the arrangement. My own feeling is that the UK will probably insist on last year’s formula and that valuable time would be lost without practical result by carrying the issue further.
On the other hand in view of the importance of this issue, particularly this year, it may be that we should be able to show that we have left no stone unturned in our effort to get a formula which does not contain the word “postpone” and does not limit our action to “the current year”. In such case we should recommend to the Secretary that he send a personal message to Eden asking the UK to go along with the formula which we suggested in August. I understand that IO (UNA) has not yet determined its position.
Texts of the two formulas follow:
[Page 785]Formula handed to the British Embassy by Mr. Murphy on August 17:
“The Ninth General Assembly,
Decides not to consider any proposals to exclude the representatives of the Government of the Republic of China and to seat representatives of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China.”
Formula adopted by the GA at its last session:
“The General Assembly,
Decides to postpone for the duration of its eighth regular session in the current year consideration of all proposals to exclude the representatives of the Government of the Republic of China and to seat representatives of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China.”