Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXX, China

194. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Thailand¹

Washington, October 28, 1966, 9:37 p.m.

75499. Tosec 143. For Secretary from Acting Secretary. Subject: ChiRep.

1. We have received three separate approaches which signify not surprising build-up of pressure from our allies over ChiRep issue.

2. First approach was from Belgian Foreign Minister Harmel yesterday to Ambassador Knight stating that Belgian Government would begin conversations with Canadian and Italian representatives at UN to introduce proposal for study committee on ChiRep leading toward tabling report at next UNGA. Harmel’s vague discussion indicated he thinking of wide terms of reference for committee (including ChiCom seat in SC) and tempted by idea of abstaining on Albanian resolution if Belgian study committee proposal not adopted. After discussion with Knight, Harmel seemed inclined to vote against Albanian resolution but thought this would be easier for Belgium if study committee resolution also tabled.

3. Second approach was from Italian Ambassador to Sisco in which Ambassador said he instructed to bring to our attention statement made by Fanfani yesterday in Parliament which hinted need for establishment of UNGA study group to make recommendation on ChiRep question. Ambassador added he had impression no immediate move being contemplated by Italian Government. Sisco promised to report approach to me, emphasized that our policy remained unchanged, and requested Italian Government take no further initiative without first consulting US. Sisco gave numerous reasons why we would have reservation about timing of any move which might be interpreted by Peking as concession to its hard-line policy. Report of his conversation being repeated separately.²

4. Third approach was from Canadian Ambassador who handed me letter from Paul Martin to you³ (which I am repeating by separate telegram), stating that Canadian Cabinet had decided it would “appear most appropriate” for Canada to go on record in GA to effect that Canada considers most equitable interim solution to be representation of both ChiComs and GRC in UN, adding that this separate initiative would still enable Canada to adhere to previous position against Albanian resolution. Martin letter notes he will be leaving Ottawa for Eastern Europe and Italy beginning November 4 and does not see possibility discussion with you prior his return November 16. I stressed our desire for further discussion before Canadian position frozen and I emphasized particular importance of timing of Canadian action mentioning possibility that Canadians might better postpone such move until next session of UNGA.

5. Comment. On basis our latest nose count, we feel our prospect for obtaining simple majority against Albanian resolution is precarious. We particularly bothered by persistence of Chile’s and Iran’s willingness to part ways with us on substantive resolution despite our high-level representations. We have now analyzed carefully UNESCO voting on ChiRep, and while we sustained our position by expected margin, several countries voted contrary to firm promises.

6. In this situation, I recommend we make additional interim rejoinders to the Belgian, Italian and Canadian representatives before you return, telling them not take any step pending further consultation. We, in concert with Goldberg, will have further recommendations for you upon your return. ChiRep debate does not begin until Nov. 21 and we therefore have time.

Katzenbach

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, UN 6 CHICOM. Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Gleysteen, cleared by Berger, cleared in draft by Acting Secretary Katzenbach, and approved by Sisco. Repeated to USUN for Goldberg.
2. Transmitted in telegram 7516 to USUN (sent to Bangkok as Tosec 139), October 28. (Ibid.)
3. Ambassador Ritchie’s letter to Katzenbach, October 28, conveying Martin’s message of October 27 to Rusk, is ibid.