310.2/2–2651: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State
niact
4623. Deptel 3921 discussed this morning with Parrott, head UN Department Foreign Office, who promised to raise question with his superiors but doubted whether UK would acquiesce since British look at questions as follows:
- 1.
- UK abstention last year was in line with then British policy of abstaining on Chinese representation question as protest against [Page 235] Soviet walkout and similar action this year would not be justified in British view.
- 2.
- As technical point, if ECAFE, without raising question of its competence to decide issue, expressed desire that higher body should resolve question, is ECAFE not in effect questioning its own competence? On ECAFE’s competence UK is firm.
- 3.
- Main British concern is whether, if UK should go along with US in this instance, US would regard this as precedent and urge UK to take similar action in case of various other UN bodies. British do not wish to put themselves in position whereby yielding procedural manoeuvre on ECAFE would result in continued “whittling away” at their basic position on Chinese representation which they believe must be maintained in cases where UN body is competent to decide on this question. In view of continued US insistence UK does not see how it could give way without being repeatedly asked to yield in similar cases.
- 4.
- While recognizing special US interest in ECAFE as result of FE situation, UK believes it has stake in keeping its own position clear to FE countries and that any wavering on UK’s part would be interpreted by FE countries as alteration of UK’s basic position.
Embassy interprets Depcircgram of January 25 to mean that US will in fact continue to press Chinese representation issue at various UN bodies, although those “certain expert or quasi-expert bodies” which are excepted (paragraph 2 reference Circgram) are not defined. However, in case of other UN bodies where situation less crucial than at ECAFE, will US in fact take equally serious view of UK action on Chinese representation question? In conversation with Younger and Parrott we have emphasized special position of ECAFE and attempted to avoid question of future US action in respect to other UN bodies, but British look at problem as a whole of which ECAFE is only apart.