330/9–750: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations
224. 1. Dept has given consideration urtel 412, Aug 31. Dept fully aware implications of Chi Commie Rep participation in SC debate even for limited hearing on Formosa item.
2. Deptel 1921 indicated that US opposition to SC hearing Commie Rep was on ground that they will have opportunity for hearing before SC Comm of Investigation which will have auth hear anyone it chooses. This remains Dept’s position.
3. While we do not recognize the Commies as the Govt representing Chi, we decided that it was in our interest to have the SC air the charges made by them as the complaining party in the case. Inherent in our decision to support inclusion of this question on SC’s agenda was the realization that Chi Commies wld be given a hearing at some time in one forum or another before SC cld take final action on the matter. Without such hearing of the complaining party our position might well be interpreted as an empty gesture and wld dissipate the beneficial effect on world opinion of our prompt and unreserved declaration welcoming inquiry. Moreover, unqualified refusal by SC of affording any opportunity to Chi Commies to be heard might offer a pretext to Chi Commies for a claim that UN refused to concern itself seriously with their charges and they wld therefore resort to self help as the only way open to them.
4. This does not mean however that we must support participation of Chi Commies Rep in SC at this stage of debate. In consultations with friendly dels and in the SC you shld take the fol position:
SC has before it grave charges made against the US, a member of UN. The US declared that it wld welcome UN consideration of the Formosa complaint and supported inclusion of the matter on SC agenda. We further declared that “we wld approve full UN investigation here or on the spot. We believe that UN consideration will contribute to a peaceful rather than a forcible solution of that problem”. The rational procedure for SC wld be to initiate impartial inquiry [Page 490] with a view to obtaining relevant facts. Debate on merits without prior ascertainment of facts is bound to lead to abuse of SC for propaganda purposes. Those members genuinely desirous to assist the SC in performing its vital function wld agree on such course.
Draft res submitted by Sov Rep demanding condemnation of US (urtel 441)2 indicates clearly purpose to obstruct SC for propaganda aims and divert it from orderly procedure. This draft res is neither based on facts nor does it provide for ascertainment of facts. It calls for judgment on basis of palpable lies. To support debate on this draft res at this stage before Commission has had opportunity to report the facts to SC wld mean to become accomplice in abuse of this forum for purposes not germane to its legitimate functions. Consequently, US will continue oppose hearing Chi Commies in SC on ground that place for them to be heard is Commission where they will be given full opportunity. When report of SC Commission comes before SC, it will be for SC to determine at that time in light of report and prevailing circumstances whether additional hearing be given to Chi Commies in SC before the Council takes action.
5. FYI Dept hopes that you will be able to explain above position in such a way as not to prejudice the fundamental principle of a fair hearing for any interested party which is inherent in the judicial process and in the procedures for peaceful settlement. Since the inception of UN the US has championed this principle. Indeed, we have been so consistent in advocating this principle that in one instance (Greek case) US joined USSR and its satellite in voting for inviting interested states against opposition of 8 other SC Members (100th mtg of SC, Feb. 10, 1947).3
6. Dept desirous obtain early indication how individual friendly Members of SC will vote on proposal for Commission. Above position predicated on assumption that at least seven votes will be available in support of proposal along lines of Deptel 183.4 If this assumption proves correct we believe SC shld as matter of sound procedure agree to consider first proposal for SC Commission before considering Sov condemnatory res even though latter res submitted first and thus wld normally be entitled to prior consideration.
- Dated August 29; not printed.↩
- Telegram 441, September 2, from New York, not printed, transmitted the text of a Soviet draft resolution introduced on September 2 but not voted upon. The resolution called for United Nations Security Council condemnation of United States aggression against Taiwan and withdrawal of United States forces from Taiwan and other territories belonging to China. The Soviet draft resolution is printed as U.N. document S/1757.↩
- For related documentation, see Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. v, pp. 816 ff.↩
- See footnote 1 to telegram 399, August 30, from New York, p. 469.↩