501.BB/9–149: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Ross)

secret

453. Following are Dept’s comments on three objectives of Chinese case as stated by Tsiang which raise doubts as to advisability of presenting it:

(1)
Believe GA finding of Soviet violation of treaty is possible of attainment, but would depend on nature of evidence presented. However, you should point out that case would be weakened (a) if it were necessary to rely principally on violations which occurred some time [Page 165] ago; (b) if case rested on provisions of treaty open to differing interpretations. (We have in mind, e.g., possible argument that in absence Jap peace treaty, the “peace time” provisions for excluding Dairen from P[or]t Arthur Base regulations not yet applicable.) (c) if Soviets could show that alleged violations arose as result of inability of Nationalists to carry out treaty or if they were able present strong counter-charge of Nationalist violations. This last factor would have particular bearing on usefulness of finding of Soviet violation as justification for Chinese unilateral abrogation of treaty.
(2)
Dept seriously questions second objective on following grounds: (a) Soviet violation of treaty is unrelated to any recommendation that Members not recognize communists; (b) recommendation would deprive Members of future freedom of action and would probably be resisted on that ground; (c) recommendation would probably be rejected by GA with consequent harm to Nationalist cause; (d) believe in general inappropriate for GA to recommend recognition or non-recognition in specific cases.
(3)
Recommendation that Members give moral and material aid to Nationalists seems inappropriate since also appears unrelated to Soviet violations of treaty and rejection would also harm Nationalist cause. It might be appropriate for GA to recommend that Members refrain, from aiding communists (similar to Greek case) provided recent substantial Soviet aid could be proved. For your info Dept considers such proof extremely doubtful.
(4)
Suggest you also mention possibility that Chinese communists (or USSR on their behalf) might request to be heard by GA in connection with case and that if charges directly involved Communists (such as their receipt of Soviet aid) sentiment might well develop for granting request.

Acheson