793B.02/1–2050: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
88. 1. Following receipt Deptel 32 January 12 I called on Foreign Secretary Menon to obtain Indian views re Tibetan desire send mission Washington. Menon said in “his opinion despatch such mission would [Page 284] serve no purpose. He hoped, however, we would not suggest Delhi as avenue for discussions. If discussions would take place here there was danger wide publicity. Communist Government would probably charge that Delhi was becoming center of conspiracy to effect separation Tibet from China and might speed up plans for conquest Tibet. I asked him for suggestions as to where meeting between Tibetan and American representatives might take place. For US refuse to see Tibetan representatives at all, might have extremely depressing effect. He agreed it would be preferable for Tibetans not to be completely discouraged in their efforts to fortify their position against possible Chinese Communist invasion but said he could make no helpful suggestions as to place of meeting.
2. I learned from UK High Command [Commissioner?] that several days ago he received from London instructions to send through Indian MEA radio message from Hector McNeill1 to Tibetan Government UK hoped Tibet would reconsider its decision send mission to UK; such mission could achieve nothing since there was no possibility admittance Tibet in UN and since UK not in position extend direct assistance Tibet. In response my question High Command said adjective “direct” used merely to soften negative tone of message. Message also indicated UK could not, even if in position to do so, aid Tibet without consultation with other interested powers.
3. He received today through Indian MEA communication from Tibetan Government replying to his preliminary message sent early this month (Embtel 1484 December 1).2 Tibetan Government said even if no possibility admittance in UN it was sending mission UK to ask for aid against threatening Chinese Communist invasion, such mission had already left Lhasa and it was hoped it would be granted courteous reception by UK Government.
4. Regardless receipt this message UK Command was forwarding McNeill’s message to Lhasa in hope Tibetan Government would stop its mission somewhere en route. If mission was not stopped new decision as to UK attitude must be reached when it arrived in India and requested UK visas.
5. Both High Command and we believe mission to US has also started on its journey and is traveling with UK mission.
6. In circumstances we suggest Department authorize us call in immediately informal representative in Delhi of Tibetan Government and ask him inform Tibetan Government US not at present in position lend effective aid to Tibet; that in opinion US Government arrival in US just now of Tibetan mission might be harmful rather than helpful to Tibet since it might strengthen hand of elements advocating [Page 285] immediate invasion Tibet, and that US Government therefore hoped mission would not be sent and that if it had already left Lhasa it would be instructed not to continue on to US.3
Sent Department 88; Department pass London.
- British Minister of State.↩
- Text in Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. ix, p. 1086.↩
-
The Department of State sent the following reply in telegram 88, January 27, 7 p. m., to New Delhi: “Dept approves suggestion para 6 ur 88 Jan 20 and desires you convey msg orally Tibetan Rep soonest possible.” (793B.02/1–2050)
Since the Tibetan Representative had departed from New Delhi, the message had to be transmitted through the Indian Representative in Lhasa (telegram 168, February 4, from New Delhi; 793B.02/2–450). Mr. Henderson subsequently reported that the message had been delivered to the Tibetan authorities in Lhasa who stated that they had already given instructions to have their mission discontinue preparations for departure for the United States. The Tibetan authorities also expressed considerable disappointment that no aid would be forthcoming from the United States, (telegram 194 from New Delhi, February 10; 793B.02/2–1050)
↩