Office of the Historian

144. Letter From the Representative to the United Nations (Goldberg) to President Johnson1

New York, April 28, 1966.

Dear Mr. President:

I understand through Bob Komer you would like my current views on the Chinese Representation issue in the UN. You may recall that after the decision in the General Assembly last year I wrote you saying I was convinced we would have to move to a policy which would recognize the right of both the Government of the Republic of China and Communist China to UN seats.

I have discussed this again recently with Secretary Rusk and am especially anxious that we reach an early decision. We are already being unusually pressed by the Chinese and also by some of our friends such as Japan, Canada, and others about our policy.

Only you can make decisions required on this issue, and I hope you and the Secretary and I can sit down and discuss the matter before I go to Ottawa on May 17, where I will certainly be queried.

The attached memorandum2 explains my views in detail. In essence they are as follows:

1.
We run the grave and unacceptable risk of the majority vote going against the Government of the Republic of China in next Fall’s General Assembly. There is even a substantial risk that we might lose two-thirds majority vote.
2.
Our new basic policy, both for UN tactical reasons and for broader strategic reasons, should be (A) to assure maintenance of a Government of the Republic of China seat in UN and (B) to shift responsibility for any continued non-participation by Chinese Communists from us on to them in line with our developing concept of containment but not isolation.
3.
We should therefore support a “Successor State” resolution in the next General Assembly which would recognize both the Government of the Republic of China and the Chinese Communists as having UN membership.
4.
How we would get to the point is very important. I propose that as the first step I be authorized to explore with Pearson and Martin the [Page 294] possibility of Canada taking the initiative on the successor state resolution next Fall without attribution to US: They are known to be interested in some such move. If they decide to do it we should then make an early approach to the Government of the Republic of China to assure them we will protect their seat in the UN to the hilt but also to warn them we cannot be expected to oppose Peking as strongly as in past against proposals to admit it. We would have to consider carefully how and when people like the United Kingdom and Japan would be informed.
5.
It will be much preferable, once launched, that a successor state resolution be adopted. We should therefore not oppose it and at an appropriate time, in consideration with Canadians, we might need to come out for it.
6.
It may turn out that we would have to commit ourselves to some degree also about the Security Council seat, although I would prefer not to do this at this point.

I am sending the Secretary and Joe Sisco a copy of this letter.3

Respectfully submitted

Arthur J. Goldberg
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, UN 6 CHICOM. Secret. Filed with an undated covering memorandum from Read to Rostow that states that a scheduled meeting on April 28 between Rusk and Goldberg to consider “the ChiRep question” had been canceled but would be rescheduled early the following week.↩
  2. Not printed.↩
  3. The letter and memorandum were transmitted in telegram UNMIS 53 from USUN, April 27. (Department of State, Central Files, UN 6 CHICOM)↩