83. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Merchant) to the Secretary of State1
Both Ambassador Heeney today2 and Sir Roger Makins on February 23 have taken great pains to emphasize to the Acting Secretary the importance that is attached to making a distinction between the off-shore islands on the one hand and Formosa and the Pescadores on the other. Each has stated that he was reflecting only the views of his own government but I think it is a clear deduction that our position with respect to the off-shore islands is a major point at debate in London. I have the strong hunch that what they are trying to tell [Page 214] us without putting it into words is that they can swing all of the Commonwealth, including a reluctant but sobered Nehru, behind our policy if we will indicate that we are prepared to have the Chinese Nationals withdraw from all the off-shore islands and make our stand on Formosa and the Pescadores. They are certainly saying quite clearly that they are having great difficulty with their public opinions on the matter of the off-shore islands.
Both of these approaches, however, were based on the situation before Chou En-lai’s violent rejection of the Security Council invitation and as this sinks in it may modify some of their views.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/2–455. Secret. Sent via Murphy and Hoover. The source text bears Hoover’s initial “H”.↩
- In the conversation under reference, recorded in a February 4 memorandum of conversation by Merchant, Canadian Ambassador Heeney gave Hoover a message from Foreign Minister Lester B. Pearson, who was attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference, emphasizing the distinction between the status of Formosa and the Pescadores and that of the offshore islands and noting the importance attached to this distinction by Canadian and British public opinion. (Ibid., 793.00/2–455)↩
- See Document 73.↩