310.2/4–654: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Department of State
591. Re: Chinese representation. We met with Dixon, Crosthwaite, and Ramsbotham of UKDel this afternoon to review possible developments when SC meets on April 8 under Vishinsky chairmanship. Discussed two main forms in which Soviets might raise Chinese representation question: (1) ruling by chair that Tsiang not entitled to represent China and (2) motion by Vishinsky as Soviet representative to unseat Tsiang, seat Chinese Communist representative, or both. UK agreed that in event of (1) it would be desirable to challenge Vishinsky’s ruling on ground that president lacked authority to make such a ruling to overturn an earlier Council decision approving Dr. Tsiang’s credentials. Agreed that this approach should also be followed if Vishinsky gave ruling based on point of order raised by himself as Soviet representative.
UK apprehensive that Soviets instead will follow course (2) above, which would threaten possibility of open split with US on merits of representation question unless moratorium formula can be applied here. UKDel suggested possibility of countering course (2) by motion for simple postponement of discussion under rule 33(5) of SC provisional rules of procedure. Text of motion contemplated by UK would not fix any date for discussion of question, nor would it state that postponement was indefinite or being sine die. However, it would be made clear in statements to Council that postponement was for indefinite period, and motion was therefore within scope of rule 33 (5).
It was suggested to Dixon that if postponement motion were put “to postpone … indefinitely” he could protect UK position by explaining this did not mean postponement to Greek calends, motion would be squarely within rule and not subject to mischief-making by Vishinsky and would reflect solidarity between US and UK which would be ten-strike for both of us in resisting intensified Soviet efforts to split free-world countries.
Dixon indicated he might make statement that postponement was not to Greek calends but simply for an indefinite period of time without setting a day on which discussion would be taken up. UKDel planned to report to Foreign Office. Dixon believed London would prefer simple postponement.
We raised point as to whether Soviet motion would be in order, since it would not relate to any item on council agenda. UK believed motion could be made without agenda item.
Pending Foreign Office reaction, we expect to continue discussions with UK on procedural points and tactical possibilities re Chinese [Page 728] representation issue in SC. In connection with possible motion by Vishinsky, will explore with UK idea of having motion declared out of order in absence of agenda item, with inclusion of item on agenda being voted down if proposed.