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

80. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the United Nations¹

Washington, July 7, 1959—9:29 p.m.

14. Re Chirep Issue at 14th GA. In anticipation expected UK initiative to discuss Chirep issue with us and as part of preparations for 14th GA, Dept has been reviewing question tactics along lines indicated Gadel 30, October 2, 1958.²

1. We believe we should be prepared for major effort on Chirep with probability proposal separate agenda item as in recent years.

2. We continue believe classic moratorium formula has served us well in past, is understood by other countries, is most advantageous in terms creating precedent which helpful on Chirep issue other UN bodies and should be followed again this year.

3. In view developments since last GA, including ChiCom acts Tibet, and changes in governmental attitudes or compositions certain countries, we believe it would be possible obtain at least as much support for moratorium formula as we did last year. We would hope should be possible for example obtain support Greece which last year abstained for reasons largely unconnected with China problem. Influence Tibetan situation and one of formulae, discussed below, envisaging more substantive debate, might lead Ireland adopt more cooperative attitude. There has also been favorable change in relations between Libya and China.

4. In order make our position even more effective and avoid certain past difficulties, we have considered certain variations on past procedures. Our general objective is to find tactics which will encourage participation in substantive debate by our friends prior adoption moratorium procedure without our losing tactical control of situation. We have kept in mind following factors:

(1) At recent GA’s and particularly at the 13th GA Soviet bloc and neutralist members engaged in substantive debate China issue while friendly countries for most part refrained from so doing.

(2) Certain friendly states, particularly LAs, showed restiveness on certain preliminary moratorium votes and indicated desire have substantive debate.

(3) UKDel, which in earlier years had opposed substantive debate, expressed concern after 13th GA that most speakers had reflected only the Communist and Afro-Asian views (Delga 41, September 24, 1958³)and UK Foreign Office official has recently mentioned possibility having debate on Chirep issue prior moratorium resolution.

5. Department has considered following possibilities based on assumption separate agenda item would be proposed. Generally similar tactics might be followed whether issue first arises in Credentials Committee or in Plenary.

A) If separate agenda item proposed and is considered by General Committee, USDel instead of proposing moratorium immediately, might defer initiating proposal until after there has been substantive debate on Chinese issue. Following substantive debate US would propose usual type recommendation consisting of two points: rejection inclusion of item and decision adopt “moratorium”. When General Committee report reaches Plenary, GA might engage substantive debate on General Committee recommendation in view precedent thus already created for substantive discussion by General Committee. We recognize our delay in moving moratorium might involve risk undesirable neutralist proposal for creation study committee, etc., might be tabled and obtain precedence; and that our delay in proposing moratorium would have to be explained to our friends to avoid impression change in our general policy.

B) Alternatively, we might seek have General Committee simply recommend rejection proposed item with no moratorium recommendation. When GC report is discussed in Plenary we might then move to amend the GC report by adding moratorium recommendation. This procedure would meet objections of those who are concerned with legal basis for GC recommending moratorium, but would be likely encounter difficulties with UK which reluctant reject item in absence moratorium. Our failure to include moratorium recommendation in General Committee would also be likely create misunderstanding.

C) We might continue procedure followed recent GAs but inform our friends in advance that in view practice recent years of Soviet bloc and others discussing substance Chinese issue we believe substantive debate on China issue is in order in the General Committee prior adoption of the GC recommendations on handling Chirep and is likewise in order in the GA prior to adoption of GC report; that we intend accordingly to speak on substance and we hope that friendly states will participate in debate also.

6. Tibetan issue should provide additional material this year for speeches against Chinese Communists. Prior to GA we should inform friendly states of our intended procedure with view encouraging these states participate and we should make available background material which might be useful in planning speeches. Ambassador Lodge’s proposal to issue press release prior GA and to hold discussions with LAs and others would offer helpful forum for enlisting support new procedure.

7. Once we have worked out preferred procedure we should consult fully and promptly with UK on manner in which substantive discussions of China issue should be developed so as to avoid creating impression of any break in US/UK cooperation on this issue.

Department inclined believe procedure 5 C above offers best prospect. USUN’s comments and suggestions would be appreciated.⁴

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320/7–759. Confidential. Drafted by Sisco and Bacon on July 2; cleared by Parsons, Martin, Green, Wilcox, and Day; and approved by Murphy who signed for Herter.
2. See footnote 5, Document 34.
3. Not found.
4. USUN noted in telegram 40, July 10, that it favored the option outlined in paragraph 5 B. (Department of State, Central Files, 320/7–1059)