398. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State 1

2333. Subj: Chirep Meeting With Central Americans. Ref: USUN 2280.2

Summary: In meeting with Central Americans on Chirep, Bush drew attention to new position on DR which ROC now conveying to close friends. Urged governments to consider joint ROC–US conviction that support for DR is best means of preserving ROC representation. Agreed continue close consultation in NY and capitals. Recommend addressees make further approaches. End Summary.
Bush held follow-up meeting Aug 19 with five Central American dels: Molina (Costa Rica), Castenada-Cornejo (El Salvador), Asensio (Guatemala), Sevilla-Sacasa and Roman (Nicaragua), Rios (Panama). Phillips and MisOffs also present. (No Honduras rep now in NY and we still have not seen here.)
Bush remarks designed principally to move these governments toward support and co-sponsorship of DR. For this purpose, he emphasized that to preserve ROC’s seat DR policy must be successful and that ROC itself wants it to succeed. Protection of ROC’s seat requires support for widely acceptable DR concept embodied in US reses. Bush paid tribute to loyalty toward ROC that made some of best friends of US and ROC reluctant to support DR. He and MisOffs brought dels up-to-date on our understanding of ROC’s private attitude. Referring specifically to recent ROC instructions—clarified at Chiefs of Missions conferences held in past 10 days—that ROC missions should encourage friends to support DR (reftel), we urged dels to discuss with ROC Amb Liu and to stimulate governments to seek clarification directly from ROC.
Group seemed receptive to presentation. Discussion indicated most not aware of current ROC position. Discussion of ROC attitude and other aspects of problem also tended verify our previous impression that FonMinistries not communicating sufficiently with these UN dels on Chirep.
Sevilla-Sacasa (although he typically postured as senior of group) revealed sparse understanding of rationale for new reses, and [Page 789]we sought to clarify (with unknown success) such questions as why we were not using old IQ formula and why we want avoid issue of admission of new state. Sevilla-Sacasa summarized problem as centering on attitudes of GA membership, of PRC and of ROC. Sevilla-Sacasa asked Bush how many Asians would co-sponsor US reses. Bush said we anticipated EA governments support and co-sponsorship. We working intimately with them trying to adjust to their needs. However, EA governments need time to consider; therefore, for example, we requested item inscription alone. Bush reported that several EA’s have spoken of need for DR language on SC seat; he described US attitude in terms of Secretary’s statement regarding a majority view.
Castenada-Cornejo (El Salvador) said he and other ROC friends concerned that their support for DR concept would give impression of policy inconsistency. Furthermore, vote might imply political recognition of PRC; this might damage relations with ROC, perhaps even leading to break in relations. Issue is also domestic political concern. We replied, in addition to substance of para 3, that our approach would avoid UN seeking decide rival claims and that member’s UN vote need not mean change in bilateral policy.
Rios (Panama), pointing out he had no instructions, said Chirep question so sensitive that he believed it would be more fruitful for US to discuss in capitals. FonMinistry has informed him GOP studying issue. We agreed discussions in capitals important and described extensive US activity in field. We assured Rios we would continue approaches in Panama but added that we would hope also to work closely in NY as well. Underlined value of close coordination among US, ROC and others both here and abroad.
Comment: Recommend addressees make clear to Fon Ministries high value we place on type of consultations reported this message. At same time it would be helpful if addressees could find means of getting across point that it in mutual interest for hosts to keep UN reps as fully informed as possible.
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM. Confidential. Repeated to San Jose, San Salvador, Guatemala City, Managua, Panama, Taipei, Tegucigalpa, and Tokyo.
  2. Dated August 16. (Ibid.)