Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Korea and China, Volume VII, Part 2

793B.00/7–251: Telegram

The Consul General at Calcutta (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

top secret   priority

Calcutta, July 2, 1951—8 a. m.

4. Notes re three conversations which Thacher had in Kalimpong last week with Shakabpa brought here by Linn¹ who just completed quick trip to Kalimpong at Emb’s request.

Notes being pouched today. Most interesting feature is that on 26th Shakabpa told Thacher he had recd and already answered five questions from Tibetan Govt, as fols:

1. Whether GOI wld allow Dalai Lama to transit India “en route to USA”.

2. Whether US aid wld be restricted to “assisting Dalai Lama’s flight” or whether aid might also be forthcoming for resistance.

3. Whether US aid wld be given “openly or surreptitiously”.

4. Whether US Govt wld give any assistance if Tibetan Govt shld announce its acceptance Sino-Tibetan Agreement.

5. If Dalai Lama shld go to USA, how wld he be recd?

Thacher states replies which Shakabpa told him he had made to foregoing questions seem accurately to reflect US Govt’s position as previously communicated to Shakabpa. Implications of fourth question are, however, extremely disturbing. Shakabpa, who seemed personally aware of dangers of cooperating with Chi Commies, told Thacher he knew of no plans in this connection. However on June 29 when discussing same point, Shakabpa expressed opinion not over 50 percent of Tibetan officials had clear understanding of implications of present situation faced by Tibetan Govt.

In his conversations with Tibetans, Thacher has evidently reiterated US position skillfully and Shakabpa has given repeated assurances he has made forceful representations to Yatung. Shakabpa appears to have been unable, however to persuade Dalai Lama to act and Thacher has clear impression that Tibetan Govt unable make up its mind.

In discussing proposed US Govt statement, Shakabpa emphasized that since Tibetans had never recognized Chinese suzerainty, he hoped our statement wld not mention suzerainty in any way. As Thacher requests instrs on this point, comments of Dept or Emb wld be welcome.²

Sent Dept 4; rptd New Delhi 4.

Wilson

1. Robert H. Linn, Consular Attaché at Calcutta.
2. The Department replied in telegram 4 to Calcutta, July 3, 1951: “Dept does not wish to commit itself on what it may or may not say re legal status Tibet. If Shakabpa shld press suzerainty point, he cld be merely told that his views had been made known to this Govt.” (793B.00/7–251)