65. Telegram From the Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, at Geneva1
789. New York’s 4,2 paragraph 5. Following is text of statement3 on renunciation use of force:
“One of the practical matters for discussion between us is that we should reciprocally renounce the use of force to achieve our policies when they conflict. The U.S. and the PRC confront each other with policies which are in certain respects incompatible. This fact [Page 104] need not, however, mean armed conflict, and the most important single thing we can do is first of all to be sure that it will not lead to armed conflict.
“Then and only then can other matters causing tension between the parties in the Taiwan area and the Far East be hopefully discussed.
“It is not suggested that either of us should renounce any policy objectives which we consider we are legitimately entitled to achieve, but only that we renounce the use of force to implement these policies.
“Neither of us wants to negotiate under the threat of force. The free discussion of differences, and their fair and equitable solution, become impossible under the overhanging threat that force may be resorted to when one party does not agree with the other.
“The United States as a member of the United Nations has agreed to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force. This has been its policy for many years and is its guiding principle of conduct in the Far East, as throughout the world.
“The use of force to achieve national objectives does not accord with accepted standards of conduct under international law.
“The Government [Covenant] of the League of Nations, the Kellogg–Briand Treaties,4 and the Charter of the United Nations reflect the universal view of the civilized community of nations that the use of force as an instrument of national policy violates international law, constitutes a threat to international peace, and prejudices the interests of the entire world community.
“There are in the world today many situations which tempt those who have force to use it to achieve what they believe to be legitimate policy objectives. Many countries are abnormally divided or contain what some consider to be abnormal intrusions. Nevertheless, the responsible governments of the world have in each of these cases renounced the use of force to achieve what they believe to be legitimate and even urgent goals.
“It is an essential foundation and preliminary to the success of the discussions under Item 2 that it first be made clear that the parties to these discussions renounce the use of force to make the policies of either prevail over those of the other. That particularly applies to the Taiwan area.
“The acceptance of this principle does not involve third parties, or the justice or injustice of conflicting claims. It only involves recognizing and agreeing to abide by accepted standards of international conduct.
[Page 105]“We ask, therefore, as a first matter for discussion under Agenda Item 2, assurance that your side will not resort to the use of force in the Taiwan area except defensively. The U.S. would be prepared to give a corresponding assurance. These reciprocal assurances will make it appropriate for us to pass on to the discussion of other matters with a better hope of coming to constructive conclusions.”
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–2755. Secret; Niact. Drafted by Phleger and McConaughy and approved for transmission by Robertson. The statement was revised and approved by the Secretary.↩
- Supra.↩
-
Revisions in the first sentence and the last paragraph were sent to Johnson in telegram 86 to Prague, September 30. The first sentence was revised to read as follows:
“One of the practical matters for discussion between us is that each of us should renounce the use of force to achieve our policies when they conflict.”
The last paragraph was revised to read as follows:
“We ask, therefore, as a first matter for discussion under Item 2, a declaration that your side will not resort to the use of force in the Taiwan area except defensively. The United States would be prepared to make a corresponding declaration. These declarations will make it appropriate for us to pass on to the discussion of other matters with a better hope of coming to constructive conclusions.” (Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/9–3055)
↩ - The Kellogg–Briand Treaty or Pact of Paris, signed at Paris on August 27, 1928; for text, see Bevans, vol. ii, pp. 732–735.↩