795B.5/5–1151
The British Embassy to the Department of State
Text of a Message From Mr. Morrison to Mr. Acheson
I have given careful thought to the frank and friendly message you conveyed to me through Mr. Gifford.1 We start, as you say, from the common ground of desiring peace and security in the Pacific, the earliest conclusion of the Korean conflict, and the limitation of the fighting to that country. I share also your determination that the attack in Korea must be repelled. We too have heavy responsibilities in the Pacific and South East Asia area.
[Here follows discussion on Korea; see volume VII.]
You mentioned Chinese representation at the United Nations. Our views have been put on record. As said to Mr. Gifford, they flowed naturally from our conception of the doctrine of recognition. To allow the effective Government of China to occupy the Chinese seat at the United Nations is in no way a measure of weakness, but is inherent in the constitution of the United Nations. I know that many people wonder why we should support a proposal which if accepted [Page 247] would seat a Government at the council tables of the United Nations when that Government is engaged in military operations against United Nations forces which are resisting aggression. I am interested in your suggestion of a ‘moratorium’ but am not clear what you have in mind. Perhaps you could develop your thought on this a little further. Meanwhile, it seems to me that what matters is that we should both do what we can (the initiative in raising the issue does not of course lie with either of us, but with Russia) to prevent our known differences of view on this point from developing into a source of misunderstanding between us. The legal arguments for seating them there are in our view conclusive, though I should certainly not wish to display any enthusiasm in championing the claims of the Central People’s Government of China at the United Nations so long as they are set on their present course. On the other hand, I could not act in such a way as might imply support for the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek’s representative in the United Nations speaks for China.
[Here follows further discussion about Korea.]
Mr. Gifford said to me that he thought our differences on Far Eastern policy had been narrowing in recent months. I think that this is true, and I am glad. He went on to say however that he thought we might now be at a cross roads and our paths might begin to diverge again. I hope this is not so; at any rate, if the risk exists, the best way to guard against it is for us to exchange occasional messages. That is why I especially valued the candour and friendliness of your message, and I have tried to reply in the same spirit.
Washington, 11th May, 1951.
- Supra. ↩