501.A Summaries/12–149: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1386.
. . . . . . .
Chinese Case
Sponsors of the Five-State Resolution on China agreed Nov. 30 that efforts should be made to have the joint draft voted first. It was hoped it would then be unnecessary to vote on the Chinese proposal. It was also agreed that the co-sponsors would vote against all paras of Tsiang’s (China) resolution whether offered independently or as amendments to the joint draft.
There was general concurrence also that the co-sponsors would oppose reference of the case to the IC or to any special investigating committee. Mexico expected to address the Dec. 1st p. m. meeting of Committee 1 with Pakistan speaking at the Dec. 2 a. m. meeting.
Arce (Argentina) planned to vote in favor of the joint resolution, against the non-recognition para of Tsiang’s proposal, and to abstain on all other paras of the latter resolution.
His instructions, McNeil (UK) told USGADel, were to vote against the recognition para in the Chinese resolution and to abstain on the others if put separately. After further discussion, he agreed to support voting on the joint resolution first and to vote against all paras of the Chinese resolution, adding it could be considered settled that the UK would take the same line as the US. McNeil added he was leaving for England Dec. 2.
Pearson (Canada) said his delegation would vote against the para in the Chinese resolution regarding recognition and abstain on the others, but was prepared to vote against the resolution as a whole. He agreed to reconsider the Canadian position, however, about voting against all parts of the Chinese proposal.
If some paras of Tsiang’s resolution were moved as amendments to the joint draft, Padilla Nervo (Mexico) said, they would probably obtain an appreciable number of votes unless the co-sponsors of the joint resolution made clear their objection in advance. Later, Stolk [Page 226] (Venezuela) assured USGADel of his support for the joint proposal and said he would not suggest any formal amendment.
Menon (India) favored the idea of a vote on the joint resolution prior to deciding on the Chinese draft. He felt there was a very strong case for not pressing the Chinese resolution to a vote since there was no evidence of support for it.
Also favoring a prior vote on the joint draft, Kural (Turkey) said his delegation would support a motion to that effect. He thought that this tactic might result in China not pressing its resolution after the vote on the joint text.
France intended to support the joint draft, vote against the Chinese resolution as a whole and against the para regarding recognition, Ordonneau (France) told USGADel, adding Chauvel (France) had not yet decided how to vote on the other paras of the Chinese resolution. Ordonneau also said he would support a motion to vote on the joint resolution first as well as a move for a ruling to the effect that no vote should be taken on the Chinese resolution.
Sunde (Norway) said his delegation would vote against the recognition para of the Chinese draft and if it remained in the resolution, would vote against the text as a whole—otherwise, they planned to abstain non [on?] the proposal as a whole. Thors (Iceland) stated he planned to abstain on the Chinese draft or possibly vote against it.
From Corner (New Zealand), USGADel learned that Berendsen (New Zealand) planned to speak in favor of the Chinese draft and to vote for all of it except the last two paras (recognition and aid). Both Corner and Plimsoll (Australia) intended to attempt to dissuade Berendsen from making such a statement.
Support for a motion to vote first on the joint resolution as well as for a move not to vote on the Chinese draft was expressed by Grafstrom (Sweden). He planned to vote for the joint text and agreed it would be most desirable if the Chinese would not press their text.
In separate conversations regarding the Chinese draft, representatives of Liberia, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, Turkey and Iraq all announced the intention either to abstain or vote against.
Because of the large Chinese element in the population of Thailand, Jayanama (Thailand) said he would abstain on the Chinese resolution if it came to a vote in any form.
Stating he had received strict instructions to stay out of any debate on the Chinese item, U So Nyun (Burma) said he would abstain on the Chinese text and vote in favor of the joint resolution.
His delegation was under instructions to abstain on everything pertaining to the Chinese case, Fack (Netherlands) told USGADel, but added it had asked for a change of instructions to allow a favorable vote for the joint resolution.
[Page 227]Zafrulla (Pakistan) told USGADel he would give serious consideration to voting against the Chinese draft rather than abstaining.
From Tranos (Greece) USGADel learned that Kyrou (Greece) planned to support both the joint and the Chinese resolutions.
. . . . . . .