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

3059. Subj: Chirep—Co-Sponsors’ Meeting October 1, 1971.

Summary: Chirep co-sponsors met briefly at USUN October 1. All co-sponsors represented except Colombia, Dominican Republic, The Gambia, Guatemala, Lesotho and Liberia. Bush provided Chirep status report; explained how both IQ and DR submitted September 29;2 encouraged continued energetic proselytizing for our resolutions; stressing confidence that hard work would bring success; reviewed tactical prospects (including Zambian plan to apply two-thirds requirement to our DR); urged close liaison among co-sponsors: and solicited others’ recommendations. Australia (McIntyre), New Zealand (Scott), Thailand (Anand) and Japan (Ogiso) all commented. End Summary.
Bush chaired forty-five-minute co-sponsors’ meeting at USUN October 1. Following representatives attended: Australia, Chad, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Fiji, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Swaziland, Thailand and Uruguay. Phillips, Bennett, Schaufele and MisOffs also present.
Bush opened by saying we assess Chirep effort to be in reasonably good shape. He recalled last week’s 65–47 margin for inscription, recognizing that not all inscription supporters will support us in Chirep vote. Result of co-sponsors’ work in New York and capitals beginning to show. Voting appears close now, but we convinced have excellent chance of winning. Zambia general debate proposal to apply two-thirds requirement to our DR implies AR co-sponsors concerned that our IQ will pass. Important we not slacken efforts. Secretary giving priority to Chirep in extensive New York bilaterals.
Bush described September 29 tabling of IQ and DR reses under Albanian item 93 and our item 96. Said we expected simultaneous discussion in plenary. Regarding Zambia general debate proposal, suggested we take line it absurd to apply two-thirds majority for continued representation of UN member; we have not sought apply two-thirds provisions to seating PRC and we puzzled by Albanian co-sponsors’ wish to do so. Bush endorsed earlier Australian suggestion that in UN corridors we refer to IQ as “non-expulsion resolution” to strengthen psychological position. Bush concluded by specifying need to seek votes for (A) priority for IQ, (B) adoption of IQ, (C) defeat of AR and (D) adoption of DR.
McIntyre concurred in Bush’s remarks, particularly that policy is “winnable.” He noted that we should be prepared face various tactical problems. Scott suggested we be clear in lobbying whether we discussing priority for IQ and/or DR. Bush confirmed we not now planning seek priority for DR. Regarding timing of vote poll counts, Newlin said AR co-sponsors still want Chirep debate to begin as soon as possible after general debate which closes Oct 13. Tuesday, Oct 14, earliest possible beginning date. In subsequent discussion, including remarks by Ogiso and Anand, group seemed to agree that US preference for Oct 19 beginning is acceptable. Bush noted that (despite erroneous New York Times report that 100 speakers inscribed for Chirep debate) Legal Counsel Stavropulos had said there would be twelve sittings on Chirep, but we have no hard information on length of debate. Nevertheless, we preparing texts of our Chirep statements and others might also wish begin do so.
Scott suggested consider advisability of using universality argument to support Chirep resolutions; suggested we begin to prepare speakers’ lists; urged co-sponsors avoid discussion with others of vote counts, advocating we stick to line simply that we will know vote count after vote is taken; pointed out that general debate statements of Soviets, Czechs and others said minimum about Chirep, indicating worry about internal PRC developments and desire to avoid unnecessary commitment.
Meeting closed with tentative agreement to reconvene October 8, at 9:30 A.M.
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM. Confidential. Repeated to Bangkok, Bathurst, Bogota, Canberra, Fort Lamy, Guatemala, Managua, Manila, Maseru, Mbabane, Monrovia, Montevideo, Port-au-Prince, San Jose, San Salvador, Santo Domingo, Tegucigalpa, Taipei, Tokyo, Wellington, and Suva.
  2. The Important Question draft resolution was submitted as UN doc. A/L.632 & add. 1.2. The Dual Representation draft resolution was submitted as UN doc. A/L.633 & add. 1.2. (Yearbook of the United Nations, 1971, pp. 127–128, 136)