501.BB/11–2449: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
Delga 237. For Rusk from Jessup. McNeil informed us today that at meeting of British Commonwealth representatives here yesterday, it was unanimously agreed that proposed resolution on China case was “bad tactics and unadvisable”. McNeil expressed particular objection to adverse effect which third paragraph might have on Hong Kong. He took position there should be no resolution but simply debate. He stated his instructions from London were to abstain in vote on such a resolution, but that “we would line up with you people in the debate”.
[Page 218]He reported that Pakistan was especially strongly opposed to resolution and that Australia, while it would honor its commitment to co-sponsor, agreed resolution was inadvisable. He stated Lange of Norway shared same views.
In subsequent conversations, Rahim of Pakistan and Hood of Australia confirmed outcome of Commonwealth meeting, stated they would honor their commitment to co-sponsor if we so desired, but indicated they preferred we reconsider. Hood stated specifically he might, after further consultation with British and with his own Government, have to request US to leave them out.
Only concrete objection to terms of resolution expressed by any Commonwealth representative is possible adverse effect on Hong Kong of paragraph (3) and of phrase “to respect the sovereignty of China” in paragraph (1). Broustra of France also expressed to us doubts about third paragraph. Hood suggested the word “rights” in second paragraph should be in the singular. I have not had opportunity to talk personally to McNeil or other Commonwealth representatives, but hope to do so this evening.
As you know, we asked UK 10 days ago for their reaction to proposed resolution and they vouchsafed no reply until they learned two members of Commonwealth had agreed to co-sponsor. Thereupon they apparently gave Commonwealth representatives thorough working over before discussing question with USDel.
Though Hong Kong difficulty is only one which UK cites there are doubtless others which affect their thinking. It occurs to us that they may consider paragraph (3) (b) would interfere with commercial arrangements which they may contemplate.
In any case, split between US and UK on China case raises serious problem which I hope you will consider urgently. Present indications are that Committee 1 will complete action on essentials of peace resolution tomorrow morning and turn to Chinese case in afternoon session. However, Tsiang’s proposed opening statement is so lengthy that, regardless of what Soviet behavior may be, we would not anticipate that US need speak before Saturday morning.
We have considered possible revisions of draft resolution to meet objections which Commonwealth representatives have brought up and suggest following text of numbered paragraphs for your consideration.
“(1) To respect the right of Chinese people now and in future to choose freely their political institutions and to maintain a government independent of foreign control;
(2) To refrain from threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence or sovereignty of China;
(3) To refrain from seeking to acquire spheres of influence or to create foreign controlled regimes within the territory of China.”
Pending further conversations with McNeil and Commonwealth representatives, I am still inclined to feel that our resolution, perhaps as revised above, will obtain support of two-thirds of Assembly, including Commonwealth even if not UK delegations, and is best means of dealing with China case. [Jessup.]1
- Close consultation was continued on November 25 and November 26 between the U.S. and other co-sponsors of the proposed resolution, as to the most acceptable draft. A revised draft was considered briefly on November 26 but never used.↩