795.00/7–1650: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received July 16—6:32 p. m.]
100. Following is draft referred to in Embtel 99:1
I am deeply appreciative of the high motives which prompted Your Excellency in sending the message which I received on July 13. Both the President and I have been strongly moved by your appeal for the [Page 403] US to exert such authority and influence as it may have for the maintenance of peace and for the preservation of the solidarity of the UN.
One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the US is to assist in maintaining world peace, and the Government of the US is firmly of the opinion that the UN is the most effective instrument yet devised for preventing the outbreak of war. The Government of the US is therefore eager to do all that is proper and possible to strengthen and preserve the UN.
We have been giving careful thought to the suggestion contained in your message since we are determined not to fail to take any step which might conceivably be in the direction of terminating the conflict in Korea on a basis which would be likely to promote world peace. It is our considered opinion however that support by us under present conditions of the admission of the so-called Peoples Government of China into the SC or into any other organization of the UN would not serve the cause of peace and would not strengthen the UN.
We do not believe that merely because an armed group has been able by force to take possession of a major portion of the territory of a country which is a member of the UN and to set up what it calls a government, the regime so established should be permitted to take a seat in the various organizations of the UN until it has made it clear by word and deed its intentions to adhere to the principles of the Charter of the UN.
In our opinion the Peiping regime has not thus far given indication by word or deed of its intention to live up to the principles of the Charter. On the contrary, by its announced policies and its acts, it has shown that its objectives are not in accord with those of the UN.
A qualified candidate for a seat in the UN, intending to abide by the principles laid down by Charter, would, we believe, indicate a desire to establish normal relations with other nations. Peiping has thus far not shown such desire. A regime qualified to hold seats in the UN does not engage in activities calculated to promote hatred between other nations and other peoples or to instigate, or to give support to armed uprisings in other countries, Peiping is actively endeavoring to promote hatreds between nations and between continents and to stir up and to encourage insurrectionary movements among other members of the UN. It is, for instance, trying to promote hatred and friction between the peoples of Asia and those of other continents. It is attempting to set one nation in Asia against another and nations of Asia against those of Europe and America. It is lending encouragement and support to Communists and other armed insurrectionaries in the Philippines, Malaya, Burma, Indochina and elsewhere. A regime qualified to occupy seats in the UN should not support aggression. In spite of the fact that the SC has found that the invaders of [Page 404] the ROK are guilty of breach of peace, the Peiping regime is openly defying the UN and is seeking to mobilize international and internal political support in favor of the aggressors. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that the General Assembly of the UN has only recently declared itself in favor of the territorial integrity and political independence of China, the Peiping regime is cooperating with another power in the latter’s efforts to penetrate China, to bring about the de facto dismemberment of China, and to violate territorial integrity and political independence of China.
Until the Peiping regime shows that it intends to conduct itself like a member of the UN in good standing, we do not see how the Government of the US can support its admission into organizations of the UN. We do not believe that merely because China is a permanent member of the SC, any group which happens by force to obtain control of extensive Chinese territories must ipso facto, regardless of the principles to which it may adhere or of the objectives which it may be pursuing, take a seat in that body. It is our view that the problem of Chinese representation in the UN in itself is distinct from that of aggression in Korea. Each of these problems must be considered on its own merits. Aggression which is at the present time being perpetrated in Korea has not affected the attitude of the Government of the US with respect to the problem of Chinese represenation in the UN. The attitude of the Peiping regime towards the aggressors, however, has furnished additional evidence that the regime has not at present the qualifications which a member of the UN must have.
We are inclined to believe that it would be improper, if not immoral, for us to support the admission of the Peiping regime into the organizations of the UN so long as we are convinced that that regime is not qualified to be a member of the UN and that the presence of that regime in the UN would render the organizations of that body less, rather than more, effective in their efforts to preserve the world peace.
The Government of the US regrets the decision of the Soviet Government not to send representatives to fill the seats to which they are entitled. It would welcome the return of such representatives.
The Government of the US does not believe, however, that it would be strengthening or increasing the effectiveness of the UN by lending its support to the admission of representatives of the Peiping regime into the UN merely because the Soviet Union has indicated that it will not send its representatives back to organizations of the UN unless the Peiping regime is also represented. The Government of the US has no reason to think that in existing circumstances the presence of representatives of the Soviet Union and of the Peiping regime in the SC would contribute to the solution of the Korean problem. We encountered a negative attitude when we endeavored in a friendly [Page 405] spirit to prevail upon the Soviet Government to exert its influence on the aggressors to withdraw from the ROK. Both Moscow and Peiping are engaging through direct and indirect propaganda and by the use of diplomatic channels to rally support for the aggressors and to immobilize world opinion which the acts of aggression have aroused. There can be no doubt that if the representatives of the Soviet Union and of Peiping take seats in the SC they will concentrate their efforts not on endeavoring to effect the withdrawal from the ROK of the aggressors but on stultifying the endeavors of the SC to combat the aggression and on attempting to obscure the issue which is now so clear. That issue arises from the facts that an armed attack was made upon the ROK obviously in pursuance of detailed plans prepared long in advance; that the SC passed resolutions describing this attack as a breach of peace, called upon the attackers to withdraw from the territory of the Republic and called upon members of the UN to furnish to the Republic assistance in repelling the attack and in restoring international peace and security; and that the attackers instead of heeding the call of the SC have not withdrawn from the ROK but have continued their warfare, apparently with the purpose of occupying all of the territory of that Republic. The attack has been made so openly that it is-difficult-to understand how any member of the UN can regard it as other than aggression. The overwhelming majority of the members have so regarded it and have pledged their support to the actions taken by the SC. The issue is whether the UN will or will not stop this aggression and force the aggressor to leave the territory which he has invaded.
Unfortunately, the Soviet Union and certain other members of the UN as well as the Peiping regime are endeavoring to divert the attention of world opinion from this issue.2 They are endeavoring to exploit at this time such differences of opinion with regard to various international problems which exist between members of the UN opposed to aggression. It is their hope to dissipate the energies of the nations opposed to aggression by inveigling these nations into considering problems other than the main issue. The Government of the US is confident that they will not succeed in so doing.
It is not unusual for those engaging in or supporting aggression to attempt to cloud the issue by indicating that if certain concessions are made to their views, an atmosphere might be created conducive to settlement of basic problems, the solution of which is necessary for the preservation of peace. The Government of the US has learned [Page 406] through experience that concessions made to aggressors or supporters of aggression do not create an atmosphere in which basic problems are solved but merely lead to a weakening of the forces opposed to aggression and to fresh demands and further aggressive actions.
In the opinion of the Government of the US there is for the present only one solution to the problem of Korea, and that is for the North Koreans to withdraw from the ROK and if they do not withdraw for them to be driven out by the combined forces of loyal members of the UN.
- Supra. ↩
- Subsequently, in telegram 101, July 17, from New Delhi, Ambassador Henderson suggested changing the wording of this passage, in order to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of the Government of India, as follows: “Unfortunately the Soviet Union, the Peiping regime, and other governments under the influence of Moscow are endeavoring, etc.” (795.00/7–1750)↩