Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume V, United Nations, 1969–1972

286. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in the Republic of China¹

Washington, January 14, 1970, 0008Z.

5611. Subject: GRC 1970 Chirep Tactics. Ref: Taipei 126.²

1. Dept has following preliminary comments on GRC Chirep plans outlined reftel which you may pass on to MOFA:

a. Para 2 “timetable” appears generally reasonable, though we doubt that estimate of voting prepared this early can be very meaningful. Factors which cannot be assessed now and which may not be determinable until much closer to opening of 25th GA—such as progress of Canadian and Italian recognition negotiations and clearer indications of policy direction of LA and African countries, will be most important in preparing accurate estimate.

b. Although there appears to have been no reference in Che comments to GRC plans for activities in Africa and Latin America designed to strengthen bilateral ties which influence vote in UN, we assume such plans are being carefully considered.

c. We are prepared and willing, as always, to discuss this subject with GRC reps at any time—the level and timing depending on nature of consultations. If GRC contemplates discussion and/or development of new strategy, we concur that consultations should begin early; consultations to compare vote estimates and to determine where approaches to specific governments might be useful we believe are best left until late summer.

2. We welcome evidence, however tentative, that GRC is considering more flexible tactical approach. Believe best strategy on our part at moment is to give low-key encouragement in that direction, attempt to obtain better picture of types of moves GRC may have in mind, without taking initiative ourselves in suggesting new tactical approaches. In meantime we will continue to weigh various alternatives within Department.

3. We doubt “Colombian proposal” will be useful or desirable as tactical vehicle Che apparently has in mind. For your background information we have pouched text of proposal which called for establishment of special committee by 24th UNGA “to consider suggestions for revising UN Charter”. The Sixth (Legal) Committee however and subsequently the Assembly decided instead to put off question until 25th GA where it will be discussed under agenda item entitled “Need to consider suggestions regarding review of UN Charter”. While “universality” including Chirep question among reasons Colombians wish Charter revision, debate and suggestions for revisions will undoubtedly deal with other issues as well. We doubt links between debates on Chirep and on Colombian item will be sufficiently close to permit Colombian item perform role of 66–68 Study Committee proposals in “draining off” support for Albanian Res. Moreover, others will be aware that major power opposition to and hence likely veto in ratification process of Charter revision makes this item unproductive route for solution Chirep issue.

4. Nevertheless, we do not wish discourage any budding flexibility on Chirep issue. Therefore at this point without indicating position US likely to take you should express mild interest in any further refinement on use of this tactic that Che can provide. We would of course be interested in knowing level and extent GRC consideration this tactic (para 6 reftel).

5. For USUN: Welcome your comments.

Rogers

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHINAT. Confidential. Drafted by Long; cleared by Richard R. Hart, Paul H. Kreisberg, Frank P. Lockhart, Jr., William H. Gleysteen, and John A. Armitage; and approved by Assistant Secretary De Palma. Repeated to USUN, Bogota, Tokyo, and Hong Kong.
2. Document 284.