340.290/3–651
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Ward P. Allen,
Special Assistant on United Nations Affairs, Bureau of European
Affairs
confidential
[Washington,] March 6, 1951.
Subject: UK Position on Chinese Representation in ECAFE
| Participants: |
Mr. C. A. Gerald Meade, Counselor, British Embassy |
|
Ward P. Allen—EUR
|
To supplement the memorandum from Mr. Bevin on this subject which the UK
Embassy presented to the Department on February 28th, Mr. Meade, on
instructions, handed me the attached additional explanation of the
reasons underlying the UK change of position in ECAFE between last year and this. He
remarked that as received the message had included an additional
paragraph (which he had discreetly omitted) gently chiding the US for
having previously declared that it was appropriate and in order for
ECAFE to consider the matter and
then having voted against the Chairman’s ruling to that effect.
[Page 242]
[Annex]
Document Left at the Department of State by the
Counselor of the British Embassy (Meade), on March 6, 1951
Chinese Representation in the Economic
Commission for Asia and the Far East
When the question of Chinese representation was raised in ECAFE last May it was our general
policy in all competent bodies to abstain unless it was clear that
there would be a majority in the body concerned in favour of the
change-over in representation. This policy was based on our view
that it was at that stage premature to raise the question in bodies
where the change-over had no chance of securing a majority. We were
moreover anxious not to associate ourselves, by voting in a minority
with the Soviet representatives, with the highhanded Soviet policy
of walking out of each body whenever a majority failed to accept
their views. However, by the time the Fifth Session of the General
Assembly opened in September it had become clear that our policy of
abstention could not be indefinitely adhered to. The Soviet
“walk-out” policy had begun to reverse itself and the fact that the
People’s Government remained firmly in control of China could no
longer be ignored. It was therefore decided henceforth to vote
openly in competent bodies for the change-over.
At ECAFE last May it was clear that
a majority for the changeover would not be forthcoming and we had
therefore resolved to abstain if the substantive question was
raised. We therefore had no objection to abstaining on the Thai
amendment directed to postponing a decision. Indeed, any other
action would have been illogical since we were at that time prepared
to justify our abstention on the substantive issue on the grounds
that it had been raised prematurely.
Our position this year was different. We no longer take the line that
consideration of the question of Chinese representation is
premature; indeed we consider that the anomalous situation which has
now been reached can only be regularised by a decision in favour of
the change-over in each competent organ. In the debate on the Cuban
Item at the last session of the Assembly we made it clear we did not
consider it necessary or even desirable for competent bodies to
delay taking this decision while awaiting the decision in the
General Assembly. We therefore found it necessary, after the fullest
consideration, to adhere to our decision to oppose any proposal on
the lines of the Thai amendment the object of which was to postpone
a decision being taken in ECAFE.
[
Washington
,] 5th
March, 1951.
