Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI

330/9–2550

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Eric Stein of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs

confidential

[Washington,] September 25, 1950.

Subject: Hearing of Chinese Communists in the Formosa Case Before the Security Council.

Participants:	Conversations separately with
	USUN—Mr. Noyes1
	FE—Mr. Stuart2

I discussed this morning with Mr. Sandifer³ the suggestion made by FE last Friday⁴ that our telegram to New York should make it clear that “an attempt to bludgeon SC majority into submission to our view that Chinese Communists plaintiffs should not be heard could hardly redound other than to the detriment of US political position.”⁵ I told Mr. Sandifer that after discussing the matter, we agreed to omit this provision from the telegram to New York. However, I suggested for FE and UNA consideration and alternative language along the following lines:

“We would still consider it undesirable if Chinese Communists were heard in the SC now on their charges in long debate and later again in debate on the same general subject in Assembly Committee under the Soviet item. On the other hand, since we now decided to accept the hearing of Chinese Communists in Assembly Committee on Formosa if they request it,⁶ and attempt by us to force our view upon SC majority desirous to hear them in SC, if this issue should arise, would hardly redound other than to detriment to the US political position. Consequently in your discussions with other Delegations you should not connect question of hearing Chinese Communists in SC with question of discontinuing SC debate on Formosa item. Our position should be based on unreasonableness of duplication of proceedings in two UN Organs as indicated in Deptel 312.”⁷

Both Mr. Sandifer and Mr. Stuart found this language acceptable. Later on this morning, I talked to Mr. Noyes. He said that in Ambassador Austin’s view we should continue the line in the SC that the Communists should be heard in a Commission to be appointed by the SC rather than in the “plenary” of the SC, just as they would be heard in the Committee of the Assembly, and not plenary. Mr. Noyes wondered, however, what we would do if the Council does not have before it a proposal for an investigation commission and decides to continue the debate on the merits. He wondered whether it would be good politics, if it should come to a vote on the invitation, if we voted “no” in the SC today and “yes” a few days later on the same invitation in the First Committee of the Assembly with respect to Korea; would we then give an appearance that we were beaten and changed our mind as a result of the defeat? Mr. Noyes thought that USUN should try to obtain about a week’s delay in further debate of the Formosa item before the SC. The meeting will open with about an hour and a half translation of Mr. Malik’s last speech and then there is some possibility of the Egyptian opening up on Palestine. If we gain this delay, Mr. Noyes thought we would have time enough to consider whether we should take a consistent line in the SC and GA to ensure that we would not prejudice our position in the GA by our position in the SC.

At that point I read to Mr. Noyes the revised text quoted above and told him that UNA and FE consider it acceptable. Mr. Noyes then asked whether in case it should come to a vote on the invitation in tomorrow’s meeting, and seven members supported such an invitation, could the US abstain. I said that only the Secretary could authorize this departure from the standing instruction to oppose the hearing of the Communists, and suggested to Mr. Noyes that he should raise this question with Mr. Rusk who is in New York and possibly with the Secretary. Mr. Noyes said that he was fully aware of the Secretary’s commitment to the President on this matter and that he realized that it would take clearance by the Secretary. In response to Mr. Noyes’ question, I said that subject to clearance by Mr. Rusk and the Secretary, we would not oppose an abstention if it should become necessary in order to avoid detrimental effect on the US political position. I particularly emphasized to Mr. Noyes that we should not connect the question of inviting the Communists with the question of discontinuing SC debate on the Formosa item. Mr. Noyes fully agreed.

I then checked again with Mr. Stuart who agreed with the following propositions: (a) we should seek delay in the SC debate (b) if delay is impossible, we should continue our line that the Communists should be heard in the SC Commission; (c) if the SC resolves to continue the debate on the merits, the US representative might abstain if a majority is definitely in favor of hearing the Communists, providing that the Secretary and Mr. Rusk agree. I told Mr. Stuart that this was my understanding of Mr. Noyes’ view on what should be done, but that Mr. Noyes and myself agreed that no new instructions will be sent from the Department unless he calls me later on this afternoon and requests them.⁸

1. Charles P. Noyes, Adviser on Security Council Affairs, United States Mission at the United Nations.
2. Wallace W. Stuart, Acting Officer in Charge of Political Affairs, Office of Chinese Affairs.
3. Durward V. Sandifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs.
4. September 22.
5. Presumably the reference here is to language in a draft telegram being considered for transmission to the United States Mission at the United Nations.
6. In his address before the U.N. General Assembly on September 20, Mr. Acheson, referring to the Formosa question, recommended that all concerned and interested parties should have a full opportunity to express their views (Department of State Bulletin, October 2, 1950, p. 526).
7. Supra.
8. The U.N. Security Council on September 26 resumed its discussion of the Soviet Union’s “Complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa)”; for the record of the meeting, see U.N. document S/PV.503. No voting took place at the meeting, although the Soviet Representative pressed for a vote on his draft resolution (S/1732) calling for an invitation to a representative of the People’s Republic of China to attend the sessions on this question.