Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 2

761.00/10–1348: Circular instruction

The Acting Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Offices ¹

secret

Washington, October 13, 1948.

Pattern of Soviet Policy in Far East and Southeast Asia

Sirs: The Department refers to London’s telegram No. 2778 of June 23, 1948,² requesting an indication of the Department’s thinking with respect to the pattern of Soviet policy in the Far East and Southeast Asia, and to Moscow’s telegrams No. 3310 of December 2, 1947 (repeated to London as 363)³ and No. 1214 of June 30, 1948 (to London as 74)⁴ on this same subject.

The matter has been given careful consideration by the political and research divisions dealing with the areas mentioned and the memorandum enclosed with this instruction presents their current views in this connection.

Although treated in more detail, the analysis of Soviet policy in the enclosed memorandum corresponds in general to that contained in the telegrams of the Embassy at Moscow referred to above. The major point of difference concerns opinion as to whether or not Soviet policy envisages active support of the Chinese Communists in attaining their object of domination of all China in the face of the risk that a Communist regime in China might present a “Tito”⁵ problem by rejecting Moscow’s authority.⁶ As a corollary, the question arises as to whether or not the Soviets might be reluctant to foster the expansion of Chinese Communist influence in Southeast Asia for the same reason. In brief, although citing the risk, the Embassy in Moscow feels that active support of the Chinese Communists along these lines is still a cardinal factor in Soviet policy, whereas the Department is inclined to give more weight to the disturbing effect of Tito’s recalcitrance to the confidence of the Soviet leaders in their ability to control a Communist regime ruling all China.

A factor favoring the U.S.S.R. not mentioned by the Embassy in Moscow is the potential exploitation by the Soviets of their domination of areas in Northeast Asia upon which Japan is, to a large extent, economically dependent in the long run.

The attached memorandum should be useful (to London only) as background material for discussion of this subject with appropriate officials of the Foreign Office. Any significant divergence of opinion either on their part or on that of the Embassy in London should, of course, be reported.

This instruction is being sent to London, Moscow, Nanking, Shanghai, Singapore, Bangkok, Saigon, Rangoon, Seoul, and Tokyo for comment.

Very truly yours,

For the Acting Secretary of State:

John D. Hickerson

Director for European Affairs

1. Sent to London, Moscow, Nanking, Shanghai, Singapore, Bangkok, Saigon, Rangoon, Seoul, Tokyo.
2. Not printed.
3. Not printed.
4. Ante, p. 583.
5. Josip Broz-Tito, Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of the Federated People’s Republic of Yugoslavia.
6. For documentation on the interest of the United States in the dispute between Yugoslavia and the Communist Information Bureau, see vol. iv, pp. 1054 ff.