39. Telegram From the Representative at the United Nations (Lodge) to the Department of State 1

391. Re Formosa. Ambassador Tsiang (China) called at his request this afternoon to seek information from me about the ceasefire action, which I was unable to give him.

He said he had talked with Munro and had asked him whether Munro favored a resolution which would embody the idea of an appeal, or would use the legalistic phrase “calls upon”. Munro said he favored the phrase “calls upon”, and said he hoped that during the debate in the Security Council Tsiang would “not make unnecessary trouble”.

Tsiang said: “I cannot remain silent on these issues without being regarded as a traitor by my own people. If the resolution uses the phrase ‘calls upon, I must be stiffer. If the word ‘appeal’ is used, I can be softer. The words ‘calls upon’ put me on the spot. I also prefer a vague phraseology such as: ‘appeals to all the parties concerned’ rather than mentioning Nationalist China and Communist China by name. If the latter happens, then the concept of two Chinas is created and this is strongly to be avoided”.

I told Tsiang that I thought he would make a great mistake if he vetoed such a resolution and that it would be much cleverer from his own viewpoint to let the Soviet Union veto it on behalf of the Chinese Communists. I said that if the Soviets vetoed it and the Chinese Nationalists did not, this would give Chinese Nationalist prestige a shot in the arm in the United States and would create considerable new sympathy for Nationalist China, which would look like the aggrieved peace-loving party. If on the other hand, the Chinese Nationalists were to veto the resolution, it would make them look belligerent and obstructive and would cost them friends here in America. He said this was a consideration which he would carefully think over.

My present impression is that he will make a speech, the stiffness of which depends upon the phraseology of the resolution, but that he will not veto.

I feel that use of “appeals” rather than “calls upon” is too weak and that the Security Council should not appear to be “appealing” to the Communist Chinese. Tsiang’s preference for “all the parties concerned” on the other hand seems to me desirable.

Lodge
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 793.00/1–2555. Secret; Priority; Limited Distribution.