199. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs (Sisco) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland)1
SUBJECT
- Chinese Representation, US–UK Differences Over
As you know, a problem has arisen with the British over the handling of the Chinese representation issue in subsidiary United Nations organs and specialized agencies. Ambassador Bruce and more recently the Secretary have discussed this question with Lord Home. The latter is said to have evinced a more flexible attitude than some of his subordinates who are taking a narrow legalistic line on Chinese representation that accords with the UK policy of admitting Red China to the United Nations. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Lord Home’s views have prevailed. On the contrary, a telephone call to me from British Embassy Counselor R.J.D. Ledward on March 26, 1962, would seem to indicate that the working levels of the Foreign Office (particularly its Far Eastern Department) are still intent on forcing a showdown on the substance of Chinese representation similar to that which took [Page 426] place in the General Assembly in December 1961, in all those bodies which they consider “competent” to discuss and decide such issues.
According to Ledward’s latest instructions the British now include in their category of “competent” bodies: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council, the ECOSOC, the IAEA, the deliberative bodies of the ILO, FAO, UNESCO, UPU, WHO, WMO, ICAO, the Board of Governors of the IBRD and the IMF and the Administrative Council and Plenipotentiary Conference of ITU. In discussing the matter with me on February 26, 1962, Ledward made it clear that if a “moratorium” proposal were introduced in any of these bodies, the United Kingdom delegation would be instructed to vote against it.
We strongly oppose reopening the debate on the substance of the Chinese representation issue in subsidiary United Nations organs and specialized agencies for reasons which are obvious. Since most of these bodies, however, are indeed “competent” in a strictly legal sense to debate and vote on the issue of Chinese representation, an “out of order” formula is not applicable and would not be honored. In order to avoid an open clash with the British therefore, it is essential that we obtain their agreement to or tolerance of some modification of our old “moratorium” formula.
In view of the conciliatory attitude displayed by Lord Home in his talks with Ambassador Bruce and the Secretary, the time appears to have come to resume our discussions with the British with a view toward developing a mutually acceptable formula whereby we can dispose of the Chinese representation issue in so-called “competent” lower United Nations bodies by procedural means. In particular we should press the British for consideration of the formula outlined in paragraph 5 of Department’s telegram 4671 to London. (Tab A)2
To obtain agreement with the British on some such concrete formula has become a matter of urgency, for the Chinese representation issue is likely to arise in meetings of the following so-called “competent” United Nations bodies between now and the opening of the 17th General Assembly in September: ITU, 17th Session of the Administrative Council, May 5; WHO, 15th Assembly, May 8; Trusteeship Council, 29th Session, May 31; ILO Conference, 46th Session, June 6; ICAO, 14th Assembly, August 28. In addition the 7th General Conference of IAEA and the 12th General Conference of UNESCO are scheduled to meet concurrently with [Page 427] the 17th Session of the General Assembly in September/October and November of this year.
It was agreed between the Secretary and Lord Home in Geneva that the problems raised by the official British position on the admission of Red China to “competent associated UN organizations” should be discussed further “in Washington”. I therefore suggest that at an early opportunity you call in the British Ambassador and discuss with him the specific formula for the handling of the Chinese representation issue in subsidiary United Nations bodies contained in paragraph 5 of Department’s telegram 4671 to London, in the light of the recent general exchanges with Lord Home on this subject. You should invite his Government’s reactions to this proposal and emphasize the desirability of obtaining early agreement on some such procedure in order to avoid unnecessary contretemps from arising between our Governments over this vexatious issue in the upcoming meetings of the agencies listed above.
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 310.2/4–662. Confidential. Drafted by Bertus H. Wabeke (IO/UNP). A handwritten note by Sisco to Cleveland reads: “H.C. You wanted to talk to Secr. on this before doing it. I think it ought to be done here not London because both you and Ormsby Gore are experts. JS.”↩
- Not printed. This paragraph suggested that when the question of Chinese representation was raised in a UN organ or specialized agency, a motion or resolution should be presented that would: (a) recall General Assembly debate and action during the 16th Regular Session (which declared the matter an “important question”), (b) recall Resolution 396 (V) (which recommended that other UN organs and specialized agencies should take into account the General Assembly’s position on the question of representation), and (c) in an operative paragraph, decide not to consider any proposal to change China’s representation. (Ibid., 303/2–2662)↩