Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, United Nations Affairs, Volume III

CA files, lot 58 D 395, “Chinese Representation at UN, 1953”

Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Bacon), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Johnson)

secret

[Washington,] September 2, 1953.

• Subject:
• United Kingdom Position on Chinese Representation.

USUN is sending a telegram tonight giving full details of the UK instructions on Chinese representation. These instructions, which have not yet been approved by the Cabinet, are in effect to go along with the moratorium but to seek a change in the formula embodied in our various proposals. The Department has also received on an informal basis from the British Embassy the substitute formula which the UK proposes.

The formula which we have proposed would have the GA postpone consideration of all proposals for changing Chinese representation “for the duration of its 8th regular session”.

The British substitute formula reads as follows: “The Assembly decides to postpone consideration of all proposals to exclude the Representatives of the Government of the Republic of China and to seat representatives of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China until such time as the Assembly has been able to consider the position in the light of developments resulting from the Assembly resolution of August 28 concerning the establishment of a Political Conference on Korea.” The reason given by the British for this change is a fear that the 8th GA will continue all year after the manner of the 7th GA.

Comment: The UK raised a similar problem at the Paris GA in 1950 which was solved by a compromise formula postponing the Chinese representation question for the duration of the 5th GA “meeting in Paris.”

My tentative views are as follows:

(1) The formula which the British suggest would not be acceptable to us.¹

(2) We shall have to decide whether, in rejecting the British formula, to work through New York or direct in a message from the Secretary to London. The latter would probably be the more effective.

(3) The British will probably not be willing to accept our formula and we should now work actively at trying to mid some form of words which will give us what we want and yet be reasonably acceptable to the UK. I have talked with UNP and we are both working to turn up all possibilities. No action need be taken until the telegram is received from New York.

1. Marginal notation by the Deputy Director of the Office of Chinese Affairs (Martin), beside (1): “Agree EWM”. There is inscribed also the initials of Alfred leS. Jenkins, Officer in Charge Political Affairs.