Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, China, Volume II

42. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, January 26, 1955¹

Washington, January 26, 1955

SUBJECT

• Submission to UN Security Council of Question of Cessation of Hostilities in Chinese Off-Shore Islands

PARTICIPANTS

• Sir Robert Scott, Minister, British Embassy
• Mr. M.G.L. Joy, British Embassy²
• Mr. George Laking, Minister, New Zealand Embassy
• Mr. Hunter Wade, First Secretary, New Zealand Embassy
• The Secretary
• Assistant Secretary Key—IO
• Deputy Assistant Secretary Wainhouse—IO
• Deputy Assistant Secretary Sebald—FE
• Mr. Edwin Martin—CA
• Mr. Niles W. Bond—UNP

Sir Robert Scott stated that Foreign Secretary Eden had agreed to the Report of the Tripartite Working Party prepared on the previous day,³ and had approved a recommendation that the Soviet and Communist Chinese Governments be notified of the proposed New Zealand initiative by the United Kingdom representatives in Moscow and Peiping at the earliest possible time on January 28. He said that Sir Anthony Eden had also expressed the views that the invitation to the Chinese Communists to attend the deliberations of the Security Council should be conveyed by the Secretary-General, who should be given sufficient opportunity to make a determined effort to secure their attendance, and that the possibility should not be excluded at a later stage of the utilization of some conciliation mechanism if this were deemed likely to contribute to the attainment of our joint objectives.

Sir Robert then said that he understood that the Secretary had some comments to make on the Working Party Report. The Secretary said that his first comment had to do with the statement in paragraph 4 (c) that the United States representative would “endorse” the suggestion that a Chinese Communist representative be invited under rule 39.⁴ He said that while the United States could acquiesce in such a suggestion, it would be difficult for us to give it our endorsement. Sir Robert replied that, although it was probably not a vital point, he believed U.S. endorsement might make a significant difference in the success or failure of our efforts to secure Chinese Communist attendance. After some further discussion it was agreed that the language should read that the United States representative would “agree” to the invitation to the Chinese Communists. Sir Robert asked whether this meant that the United States would vote in favor of such an invitation in the event a vote should be necessary. The Secretary replied in the affirmative.

With respect to the question of instructing Ambassador Bohlen to support the démarche of the United Kingdom representative in Moscow, Mr. Wainhouse said that he had already explained to Sir Robert why this would not in our view be advisable. Sir Robert confirmed this and said that he quite understood our position.

With reference to paragraph 5 (a) of the Working Party Report, the Secretary explained the reasons for our wishing to amend the language of the last sentence in order to avoid having our hands tied in perpetuity. He said that for this reason he had suggested that the last part of that sentence should read as follows: “shall at all times be subject to consultation among the three Governments and for a reasonable time shall be subject to mutual agreement.” Sir Robert said that he thought that change would be acceptable, since it had never been the intention of his Government that there should be an unlimited commitment.

Turning to the question of the timing of the submission of the resolution,⁵ the Secretary said that it was his feeling that the resolution should be submitted at the outset in order to forestall the flood of speculation which would otherwise arise as to exactly what we had in mind in this exercise. He said that since it was not feasible to try to keep the nature of the resolution secret, he believed it would be more clear-cut to make the text of it known from the first. Sir Robert said that this was the most difficult of all the Secretary’s suggestions for his Government to accept. He said that there were three possible purposes of the exercise: (1) to rally support for the Chinese Nationalists; (2) to generate cold-war propaganda; and (3) genuinely to attempt to bring about a pacification of the area. He went on to say that, assuming (3) to be our common objective, it would be most difficult, in the event we should fail in this objective, to prevent the exercise from being perverted to serve the other two purposes. He said that Sir Anthony Eden was going into this exercise in the hope of achieving pacification and thereby getting out of the dilemma presented by the problem of the off-shore islands. He said the first big hurdle in achieving this objective was to persuade the Chinese Communists to attend, and that it was the United Kingdom view that we should do everything possible to secure their attendance. After referring in passing to the House of Commons debate on this subject, Sir Robert expressed the view that, since Chou En-lai had emphatically announced that he would not accept a cease-fire in the area, the prior submission of a resolution calling for such a cease-fire would virtually force the Chinese Communists to reject the invitation. The Secretary said that, since the United Kingdom Government felt so strongly on this point, he would withdraw his suggestion. He added, however, that it would be most important to make the true nature of the exercise clear from the beginning in order to avoid wide-ranging speculation on the subject. Sir Robert expressed agreement with this view and said that, although withholding the resolution itself, we should all make it amply clear that the objective of the exercise was confined to obtaining the termination of hostilities.

After a brief discussion of the timing of the New Zealand initiative, in connection with which consideration was given to the current Senate debate and to the fact that New Zealand would relinquish the presidency of the Security Council after Monday, January 31, it was agreed that, subject to approval of the latest changes in the Working Party Report by the U.K. and New Zealand Governments, we should proceed as planned, with the New Zealand Representative submitting his letter to the President of the Council on Friday, January 28,⁶ with the idea of having the first meeting of the Council on the following Monday.

1. Source: Department of State, ROC Files: Lot 71 D 517, 1954–1955, Offshore Islands. Secret. Drafted by Bond.
2. Michael G.L. Joy, First Secretary, British Embassy.
3. For text of the report as revised at this meeting and on January 27, see infra.
4. Security Council Rule 39 states that the Security Council “may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons whom it considers competent for the purpose to supply it with information or to give other assistance in examining matters within its competence.”

5. The agreed draft resolution, attached as Annex B to the report of the tripartite working party, reads as follows:

   “The Security Council

   “Having noted the occurrence of armed hostilities between the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China in the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China;

   “Having concluded that these hostilities have resulted in a situation the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security;

   “Calls upon the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China forthwith to terminate such hostilities;

   “Recommends resort to peaceful methods in order to prevent the recurrence of such hostilities;

   “And declares that it remains seized of the question.” (Department of State, PPS Files: Lot 66 D 70, China)

6. The agreed draft letter from the New Zealand Representative to the President of the Security Council, attached as Annex A to the report of the tripartite working party, stated that “the occurrence of armed hostilities between the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China in the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China has made it clear that a situation exists the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security” and requested an early meeting of the Security Council to consider the matter. (Ibid.) It is identical in substance to a letter sent on January 28 from New Zealand Representative Sir Leslie Knox Munro to the President of the Security Council. (U.N. document S/3354)