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

293. Telegram From the Embassy in the Republic of China to the Department of State¹

Taipei, August 19, 1970, 0710Z.

3550. Subj: Chirep: Belgian Proposal and Lusaka Conference. Ref: State 132973.²

1. During periodic review of Chirep situation MOFA Director IO Affairs Che Yin-shou brought up and discussed with Emboff proposed Belgian Chirep resolution and possible results regarding Chirep of Lusaka Conference. Che said FonOff regards Belgian proposal as “misguided friendly assistance,” and essentially a dangerous variation of “two China” approach. Although FonOff feels resolution could not pass, in part because of its undesirability from CHICOM’s viewpoint, resolution’s introduction would confuse issue and be detrimental generally to GRC position.

2. Emboff outlined generally observations regarding Belgian proposal as in para 2 and 3 of reftel. Che appeared genuinely relieved and expressed gratitude that US preliminary approach to dealing with Belgian resolution was similar to GRC’s.

3. FonOff believes that dissuading Belgians from presenting resolution is best approach. Should this be unsuccessful, FonOff favors direct drive to defeat resolution.

4. Che expressed fear that Lusaka Non-Aligned Conference potentially more dangerous than Belgian or Albanian resolutions in undermining GRC position. Che foresees following possible scenario: Lusaka communiqué could espouse Chicom entry into UN. With this psychological starter, momentum could build in UNGA speeches resulting in “sense of Assembly” vote or expression that Chicoms should be invited into UN. Che claims this whole process could conceivably be accomplished without adoption of any resolution or roll-call vote by UNGA. (We are unaware of such a procedure, particularly in a matter which has been considered an “Important Question.”) Although this strategy might not be successful in 25th UNGA session, Che fears great potential for undermining GRC, leading to seating of Chicoms in 26th UNGA session. GRC has also mentioned its concern over Lusaka Conference to Australians. Does Dept have any reading on possible discussion of Chirep at Lusaka?³

Armstrong

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM. Secret; Limdis. Repeated to Brussels, Hong Kong, London, Lusaka, Ottawa, Rome, Santiago, Tokyo, and USUN.
2. Document 292.
3. On August 20 the Department replied: “Che’s scenario (para four, reftel) for sense of Assembly vote without roll-call on specific resolution seems rather muddy to us. Certainly procedural objections could be introduced at any point in this unlikely process, such as request for roll-call vote.” The Department believed that any resolution about Chinese representation at the Lusaka Conference was unlikely to be binding or to change any later General Assembly votes. (Telegram 135482 to USUN, August 20; National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM)