310.2/8–3150: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
412. In connection with the Department’s consideration of the matter of inviting to the SC table a Chinese Communist representative, I request Department to take into account the following viewpoint to which I hold most strongly.
I believe it would be a great mistake to invite the Chinese Communist to the SC table. I do not believe a representative from Peiping could possibly be of any assistance to the SC in considering any question now before the Council or which may be raised in the Council. It is obvious that primary motive of any emissary from Peiping would be to use the SC as a propaganda forum and to obstruct and divert the orderly processes of the SC. The result of bringing such a person to the table would be to enhance the prestige of his group, to lend fuel to the Chinese Communist campaign to be seated by the GA, and to present to the world a propaganda victory against the US.
The Chinese Communists are of course not entitled under Article 32 to participate in consideration of the Formosa matter by the SC. The Chinese Communist group does not represent a “state” within the [Page 473] meaning of Article 32 of the Charter. Nor would I invite a Peiping representative to the table under Rule 39 of the SC Rules of Procedure. I do not think any person Chou En-lai sent to the Council would be competent for the purpose of supplying the Council with information or giving it any assistance whatever. China is represented at the SC by Dr. Tsiang. The complaint on the agenda involves alleged armed invasion of Formosa. As the accredited representative of China, Tsiang is the best and only reliable witness. The Peiping regime is not in a position to know what is going on in Formosa. The SC can, if it wishes, send a fact-finding mission for a survey on the spot, and no amount of debate at Lake Success would assist the SC to find a single fact. It is certain that if the Peiping regime is permitted to sit at the table, it would supply only debate and would not furnish any facts.
I do not think the SC precedents of inviting complainants can apply in any way to this situation. Major distinction, which makes this case unique, is that the alleged victim of aggression is represented in the SC and states that it does not wish to have any self-appointed spokesman. In any event, it seems to me perfectly clear that the Council is entitled to make up its own mind in any particular situation whether a complainant or any other person is competent to supply it with information or to give it assistance.
For all the above reasons I strongly recommend that I be authorized to oppose the seating of a Chinese Communist representative in consultations with other delegations and to vote against it in the Council.
I believe we should abide by a majority decision, whatever it may be, but I think we should seek to influence our colleagues on the Council to vote against the seating of a Chinese Communist at this time for any purpose whatever.