310.2/8–450
The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Franks)1
My Dear Mr. Ambassador: I wish to reply briefly to the questions put to you by Mr. Bevin in his message to you of July 29, 1950 on the subject of Chinese representation. There is little to add to the preliminary reply already given by Mr. Rusk to Mr. Graves, but it might be useful for me to cover the matter somewhat more fully.
To deal first with the precise questions put in Mr. Bevin’s last paragraph, it is true that the United States would abide by the decision of the majority on the question of Chinese representation. We should certainly not challenge the legality or the propriety of the action of the majority nor take any position inconsistent with our concept of the duties of Members of the United Nations in such circumstances. On the other hand, our attitude is not one of neutrality on the merits of the [Page 258] issue, nor are we trying to hide behind a majority of the United Nations on an issue upon which views are sharply divided. Under present circumstances we are opposed to the seating of the Peiping regime in the United Nations, and will urge our views in every appropriate way. Events in Korea and the policy of Peiping toward Korea have strengthened our objections to their admission. We are most strenuously opposed, as is Mr. Bevin, to any arrangement for settling the Korean matter in exchange for seating Peiping in the United Nations.
On the matter of a veto, our view is that we do not have a veto on this question, not that we are simply not using a veto which we think we have. We do not argue that the matter is merely procedural in nature, but rather that the Security Council might find itself in an impossible situation unless the question is dealt with as if it were procedural. We recognize that there are many technical and procedural complications in this unprecedented situation and we are by no means sure that we have satisfactory answers. Because of these difficulties we are inclined to think that the main decision should preferably be made by the General Assembly where the veto does not arise. We are not pressing for this, however, and recognize that the members of the Security Council may wish to take the question up in that body at a suitable time.
We agree fully with the three points outlined in paragraph two of Mr. Bevin’s message.
With regard to paragraphs three and four of Mr. Bevin’s message, it is not easy to see how the question of Chinese representation can be raised “purely on its merits” while the Korean aggression is still on. This is not because the two subjects should be connected in any parliamentary sense, but because the attitude of some members on the “merits” will inevitably be affected by Peiping’s encouragement and support of the Korean aggression. I believe this might be a point on which further talks between the Embassy and the Department might be mutually advantageous.
The heart of the problem arises in connection with Mr. Bevin’s fifth paragraph. These are considerations which are of the greatest importance and which should be discussed between us in more detail at your earliest convenience. We should be glad to know more about your views as to just how the separation of Peiping and Moscow could be accomplished. We doubt that Peiping will respond to favors from the West under present circumstances and do not see just how extensive such favors would have to be, even if we should accept the tactic. I believe we should consider whether the foreign policy of either Peiping or Moscow would be affected by the seating of Peiping in the United Nations or whether such increment of prestige and influence would not be another stimulus to communist aggression in Asia. It may be that, [Page 259] as Mr. Bevin fears, the present conflict will be extended by Chinese action. It is extremely doubtful, however, that the representation issue would be the cause for such an extension or that a concession to Peiping on that issue would reduce or eliminate their aggressive interest in neighboring parts of Asia.
If I happen to be away when you are ready to discuss these matters further, I am certain that Mr. Webb, Mr. Jessup or Mr. Rusk would be happy to see you at any time.
Sincerely yours,
- Handed on August 4 to the Counselor of the British Embassy (Graves) by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Merchant).↩