795.00/12–2051
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson)
Subject: Proposed Joint Statement on “Greater Sanction”
| Participants: | Sir Carl Berendsen, New Zealand Ambassador |
| Mr. G. R. Laking, Counselor, Embassy of New Zealand | |
| Mr. John D. Hickerson, Assistant Secretary, UNA | |
| Mr. U. Alexis Johnson, FE | |
| Mr. Ward P. Allen, EUR | |
| Mr. David H. Popper, UNP |
Sir Carl called at my request for a discussion of the aide-mémoire [Page 1409] presented to the Department by the New Zealand Embassy on December 20 (copy attached).1
I went over the text of the aide-mémoire with Sir Carl, disposing of the principal points which it raised. With regard to the fear of the New Zealand Government that the joint statement might be provocative, I pointed out that the statement could not prevent the conclusion of an armistice because it would not be issued until after the armistice was signed. Moreover, I emphasized that we regarded the statement as a sober warning to the Chinese Communists so that there might be no misunderstanding of our attitude. We considered the statement a precautionary step which might well keep the Communists from blundering into general war.
With regard to the possible adverse reaction of the Asian countries, I remarked that we hoped and believed that Asiatic public opinion would understand the statement in the way which I had indicated. We would do everything we could to convince all nations that, as loyal United Nations Members, we would not violate an armistice to which we had agreed. If the Communists also accepted the armistice in good faith, our statement would never have to be invoked.
As for the risk of a major military involvement in China, I told Sir Carl that we appreciated that risk and had in mind taking only such measures as would be wise from a military standpoint and in the light of the particular circumstances at the time.
Regarding an endorsement of the statement by the United Nations, I told Sir Carl we were considering the possibility of including references to it in a General Assembly resolution.
I took pains to make clear to Sir Carl the great importance we attach to the issuance of the joint statement. I told him that our recent conversations at the Pentagon had demonstrated that the statement might well make the difference between the conclusion of an armistice and continuation of the fighting. With the statement we could if necessary compromise on such matters as the rehabilitation of airfields and the details of an inspection system; without it, we would have to insist on rigid terms which would probably be unacceptable to the Communists.
Sir Carl limited himself to taking note of our views for transmission to his government and did not himself make positive comments on the substance of the issues.
- Not printed. The aide-mémoire expressed the preliminary reaction of the New Zealand Government as one of grave doubt as to the need, or more particularly as to the desirability or effectiveness, of issuing a Greater Sanctions statement. (795.00/12–2051)↩