501.A Summaries/11–1249: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1336.
. . . . . . .
Chinese Case
Although his Government took the contrary view, Tsiang (China) revealed Nov 11 that he has come to the conclusion that his delegation should introduce a resolution on the Chinese case. The Governmental view, he said, was due to the acceptance of an old Chinese custom of politeness whereby one of the parties to a dispute never suggested what solution he desired, but always turned to third parties to ask them to suggest what should be done. Tsiang does not share this approach.
Tsiang showed USGADel a handwritten draft containing three paras: 1) A finding by the GA that the USSR, through preventing the Chinese Government from taking over in Manchuria and in other ways, had violated the UN Charter and the Sino-Soviet Treaty; 2) A provision, similar to the US tentative draft, that the independence of China should be respected and that no State should take advantage of the Chinese situation for its own purposes; 3) A paragraph calling [Page 209] upon all states to refrain from giving military or economic aid to the Communists.
Asked whether he construed the third para to mean that recognition could not be extended to the Communist regime, Tsiang said he did not so interpret it. To avoid this, he had used the words “military or economic aid”. He replied with great assurance that he thought the GA would adopt such a resolution.
While Tsiang had not talked to many delegates himself, the reports from his Government indicated that most LA states would be prepared to support such a draft. He mentioned Chile and Cuba as being ready to give strong support. The Egyptian Government had promised to support and to get the other Arab states to follow suit, Tsiang said, adding that he had not shown the draft to anyone else in NY. He asked whether US support would be forthcoming, and promised to provide a copy of his draft Nov. 14.
Discussing the draft of the Chinese statement on the case, Tsiang said he had decided to eliminate all reference to exhibits, photographs, etc. His Government had planned to send a special plane with captured rifles and other exhibits, but he had dissuaded them from doing so on the ground that there was no way in which the authenticity of the exhibits could be proved to the GA. He said he had received from China supplemental materials on the current Soviet arrangements in Chinese Turkestan; the Russians were going farther there than in Manchuria, arranging for both the rights of exploitation of existing mines, etc., and rights of exploration of presently undeveloped resources.
After USGADel had outlined the general nature of a resolution based on the Nine-Power Treaty, Chauvel (France) said he would be able to support a proposal along this line. If GA debate tended to focus on the differences of opinion between the Soviets and the Chinese regarding interpretation of the treaty, Chauvel agreed that the view might be taken that the GA was not the proper forum for this phase but that the parties might take the case to the ICJ or some other judicial body.
However, Chauvel was definitely opposed to GA action which would actually submit the case to the Court, as by a request for an advisory opinion. Basdevant, President of the Court, had informed Chauvel of the difficulties in determining which Chinese Governmental authorities should be entitled to appear before the Court. He felt this difficulty would not arise if the parties agreed to transmit the case, but recognized the parties almost certainly would not do so.
. . . . . . .