330/7–650
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. H. B. Wells of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs, of a Meeting Held on July 11, 1950
[Subject:] Tsiang Proposal Set Forth In US [UN] Telegram 29 of July 6
| Participants: | UNP: Mr. Wainhouse |
| Mr. Wells | |
| USUN: Mr. Ross | |
| SOA: Mr. Mathews1 | |
| Mr. Sparks2 | |
| NA: Mr. Emmons3 | |
| CA: Mr. Stuart4 | |
| EUR: Mr. Allen5 |
At a meeting here on July 11 Mr. Ross indicated the belief of USUN that it was necessary for us to see to it that steps be taken by the Security Council with respect to Korea which would have the effect of averting a severe hangover among the nations indicating their support of SC action on Korea, once the first fine enthusiasm should have worn off. There was need for continuing SC application to the various phases of the problem. One of the things that must be done was to consider measures which would help to line up the middle powers (the Middle Eastern states and the Asiatic) in continuing support of the SC resolutions, and which would maintain the solidarity of the whole democratic bloc in the United Nations, including the Latin American and Western European states as well. Something was necessary both to offset the Soviet propaganda advantage, derived by the Communist states from the ease with which they have been able to claim that the conflict in Korea is a war where white men are shooting Asiatics, and to prevent this propaganda advantage from spreading. It was also important to proceed with vigor and acumen in this case, since it might in so many respects serve as a precedent for the future.
In the foregoing setting, the Tsiang proposal appealed to USUN.
Mr. Ross further proposed that it would be desirable that frequent meetings of the SC be held; that reports from the Unified Command be kept flowing to the Council—there should certainly be one report to the Council this week;—and that the Specialized Agencies be called upon to consider what they might do to assist the UN’s cause in Korea.
The consensus of those present at the meeting was to the effect that the Tsiang proposal had merit, and that the main difficulty with it was the question of how it should be sponsored. This question was left to the discretion of USUN, in view of the mission’s acquaintanceship with the personalities involved. It seemed that there was some likelihood Tsiang might find an opportunity of bringing this proposal to the attention of the Egyptian representative with a view to the latter’s making it his own and then discussing it with the Indians.
Mr. Mathews regarded the Tsiang proposal, in its present form as a mere self-denying ordinance, as being too negative. He considered that it should preferably take the form of a statement of the objectives which the UN seeks to accomplish in the present struggle.
It appeared to be agreed that while the objectives had already received preliminary definition in the SC’s resolution of June 25 and 27, provisions of this character might perhaps be embodied in an eventual draft resolution designed to accomplish our purpose, and that such language might be used concurrently with the Tsiang “self-denying ordinance” language. It was agreed that what the resolution should contain was a matter which could not be passed upon finally-until [Page 364] after further conversations in New York with delegation of other states represented on the SC.
Mr. Ross agreed that he would talk to Dr. Tsiang further and inform us of the outcome of his conversation.
- Elbert G. Mathews, Director of the Office of South Asian Affairs.↩
- Joseph S. Sparks, Officer in Charge of India-Nepal Affairs, Office of South Asian Affairs.↩
- Arthur B. Emmons, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs.↩
- Wallace W. Stuart, Office of Chinese Affairs.↩
- Ward P. Allen, Bureau of European Affairs.↩