Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

72. Letter From Foreign Secretary Lloyd to Acting Secretary of State Herter¹

London, April 13, 1959.

Dear Chris: I have given very careful thought to your message of April 9² about the despatch of an International Atomic Energy Agency Mission to the Far East. We are naturally as anxious as you to keep in step as far as possible and to avoid public differences and I have, therefore, sympathetically reconsidered the whole question with the aim of seeing how far we can go to meet you.

I will not rehearse in this message all the details of our views, some of which are referred to in your message, which are generally known to your Embassy here. The fundamental difficulty however lies in the fact that we recognise the Chinese People’s Government as the Government of China whereas you recognise that of Chiang Kai-shek. It was because of our recognition of the Peking Government that we could not logically consider that the nationalist signature of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency could bind the State of China so as to make it a member of the Agency. It was for this reason that we made the reservation attached to our ratification of the Statute and felt unable to vote in favour of sending a Mission to “China” as a member of the Agency.

If, however, it would help you, I should be prepared to instruct our delegation to vote in favour of the despatch of a Mission to Nationalist China in a separate vote (if it comes to this) but this would have to be accompanied by an explanation on the following lines: “In voting for the despatch of this Mission, I wish to make it clear that I understand this as a vote for the despatch of a Mission to the territory at present administered by the Nationalist authorities. I support the despatch of a Mission to that territory but my vote does not imply any retraction from the position stated in the reservation made on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government at the time of their ratification of the Statute regarding the validity of the signature which purported to have been made on behalf of China or any recognition of the Nationalist authorities as the Government of China”.

Alternatively, as explained to your Embassy here, we should be prepared either to abstain in a separate vote, in which case we should not need to make any statement, or to vote in favour of a “package” proposal for the despatch of a Mission to all the territories concerned including “China” with a statement that this did not imply any retraction from the position stated in the reservation made at the time of our ratification of the Statute regarding the validity of the signature which purported to have been made on behalf of China.

We should, in any case, be prepared to support you in a procedural motion designed to ensure that the proposal for the Mission is voted on as a whole.

With warm regards,

Selwyn³

1. Source: Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204. Confidential. Attached to the source text was a note from Hood forwarding the letter to Herter. The notation “CAH saw” is written on Hood’s transmittal letter.
2. Supra.
3. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature. Telegram 9106 to London, April 14, transmitted a letter from Herter thanking Lloyd for reconsidering the issue and noting that a separate vote and the proposed British statement were acceptable to the United States. (Department of State, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 66 D 204)