310.2/11–551
Memorandum by Messrs. Fisher and Sandifer, Advisers, United States Delegation, to the Secretary of State
Subject: Chinese Representation
Pursuant to your wishes, conveyed to us by Mr. Battle,1 we went to the British Embassy at noon through arrangement made by Mr. Raynor to consult with Mr. Shuckburgh concerning the Chinese [Page 281] Representation question. Mr. Raynor was present for the conversation. As Mr. Shuckburgh was not able to be present, we talked with Mr. Parrott who handles this matter in the Foreign Office and Mr. Dunnett (?) of the British Embassy staff.
We told Mr. Parrott that we understood that the Secretary and Mr. Eden had discussed this question briefly and had reached a tentative measure of agreement on a procedure along the lines of our Alternative B position. After some discussion, at Mr. Parrott’s request, we indicated the following language as the sort of thing we had in mind:
“The General Assembly Decides to postpone consideration, for the duration of the Sixth Regular Session meeting in Paris, of any proposals to exclude representatives of the National Government of China from the Assembly or to seat Chinese Communist representatives to represent China in the Assembly.”
Mr. Parrott expressed concern as to whether or not this was the best way to handle the problem or whether it was not preferable to wait until a motion was made by the Soviets in which case a motion to adjourn debate might dispose of the matter quickly. We indicated that from our point of view it was preferable to have affirmative action initiated by us in the form of a procedural motion of the kind set forth above. Mr. Parrott thought that the language suggested met the other two matters that had concerned the British, that is some specific statement relative to continuing the Chinese Nationalists in the Chinese seat, and the question of the duration of the resolution. Mr. Parrott said that while his Government had no thought of changing its position immediately after an armistice, if one should be concluded, they preferred not to have language which tied their hands for an indefinite period of time. He seemed to feel that the phrase “meeting in Paris” would meet their needs on this point although it was made clear that our position would be the same if under any circumstances this session should continue after the Paris meeting. Mr. Parrott said that he was not in a position to definitely agree to the text and that he would take it up with Mr. Jebb before the Secretary’s meeting with Mr. Eden at 3 o’clock.
Mr. Parrott agreed to the great urgency of this matter in view of the fact that it will come up for action tomorrow afternoon. We indicated that we would probably have to proceed with conversations with other governments this afternoon.
- Lucius D. Battle, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State.↩