795.00/2–251: Telegram

The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State


1928. Deptel 1190, January 30.

1. I talked again with Bajpai this afternoon re basis of Rau’s statement in UNGA to effect his government had been informed on highest authority that once there is condemnatory resolution no hope of peaceful settlement. I outlined what I had reported to Department (Embtel 1888, January 31) and asked if I was correct in assuming Rau’s statement had probably been based on this message from Chou En Lai. Bajpai replied in affirmative, then asked that Panikkar’s telegram containing Chou En Lai’s message in question be brought to him. He read aloud excerpts of message and found near end sentence which he had not reported to me in previous conversation which we both agreed must have motivated Rau’s statement. According to Panikkar Chou En Lai had informed him that “if any attempt is made to combine condemnation of Chinese with proposal for conference, China could not accept it.”1

[Page 155]

2. In accordance with Department’s suggestions I told Bajpai again that US was endeavoring sincerely understand nature of Indian foreign policy and policy aims but had some difficulty in determining what means India would propose to use to check aggression in Asia if not by present UN procedures. Bajpai replied difficult for India make general statement. Means which India would favor for checking aggression would depend upon form and character of aggression and upon effect which such means might have upon world peace. GOI’s proposals for dealing with Communist China’s intervention in Korea had been set forth in twelve power draft resolution.

  1. After the passage of General Assembly Resolution 498(V), Chou En-lai issued a statement on February 2 denouncing it as “illegal, slanderous, null and void”, and added that the People’s Republic of China would have nothing to do with the proposed Good Offices Committee. The text of Chou’s statement is printed in Documents on International Affairs, 1951 (issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs; London, Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 548; and also in U.N. document A/1782.