893.01/12–549
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Butterworth) to the Secretary of State
[Washington,] December 5, 1949.
Subject: Reply to Note from Indian Embassy on Question of Recognition of Chinese Communist Regime
With reference to the attached note of November 21, 1949,61 handed to the Acting Secretary by Madame Pandit on November 22, it is suggested that the reply be made to her orally when she calls at her request to see you on December 6 at 3:45 P. M.62
We suggest that the following comments would be pertinent for use in your discussion:
- 1.
- You have now given careful consideration to the points raised in the Indian note.
- 2.
- While recognizing the considerable military successes of the Communist forces, the fact is that there are portions of territory and population of China under the control of a friendly government which the United States Government recognizes and which continues to oppose the Communist drive in Asia.
- 3.
- We do not consider that delay in recognition would have a significant or lasting effect upon the feeling of the Chinese people generally toward foreigners; on the contrary that hasty recognition by individual powers might well prove an illusory benefit, particularly in view of the gross mistreatment of Consul General Ward and other foreign nationals in the areas which the Chinese Communists have taken over.
- 4.
- While the effect on trade and commerce of recognition is indeed worthy of serious consideration, this question should be handled in the light of the total national interest, having in mind at the same time the nature of the safeguards foreign property interests will have under the new regime.
- 5.
- In our view recognition within the near future by any of the leading democratic powers would have undesirable repercussions in the internal situation of countries of Southeast Asia because of the indication given of a break in the democratic ranks and of the aid and comfort given to local Communist movements. The elements of these populations which are in sympathy with the new regime are, in our view, not likely to be made less bold by the granting of recognition by the principal powers. The attempts of these elements to foment trouble are likely to be highly aggressive regardless of the matter of recognition. The reaction in the independent countries of Southeast Asia would be most important. As to the attitude of Burma, our information is that Burma is not anxious to give immediate recognition.63
- 6.
- In considering the question of assumption of international obligations by the new regime, we have searched for some indication that it is prepared to respect at least the minimum standards of international conduct and to assume the responsibility of a government in the treatment of foreign nationals and their interests. While there have been fewer instances of indignities suffered by other foreign nationals, it may well be that the Chinese Communists may later mete out to them similar treatment and that, indeed, the present apparently dissimilar attitude toward foreign nationals is itself only a phase of Chinese Communist tactics. It is agreed that promises or commitments may not necessarily have meaning; actions are what count. Unless the regime appeared inclined to respect some standard of public decency and humanity, relations, after recognition, might prove to be intolerable.
- 7.
- Therefore, while appreciating the Indian Government’s position and in the understanding that it will, of course, follow the line of action which it deems best, this Government does not believe that the time is propitious to give active consideration to recognition. We hope that the Ambassador and her Government will continue to afford this Government the opportunity for any further exchange of views upon this subject which may be deemed desirable.