310.2/7–1254
Memorandum by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Elbrick)1
- Subject:
- Exposition of United States Position on Admitting Communist China to the United Nations
One of the most recent manifestations of increasing sentiment among certain governments for the seating of the Peiping Regime in the United Nations was the statement in the New Zealand Parliament by Foreign Minister T. Clifton Webb that the Chinese Communist delegation should be seated “in an endeaver to drive a diplomatic wedge between Russia and Red China.” His position seems to be that the Government of so many people cannot indefinitely be kept out of the United Nations; that opposition to it in the United States is “emotional” and that the seating of the Peiping Government in the United Nations is necessary in order to “reduce international tension.” Some of this argumentation was also used by Mr. Eden during his recent visit.
In thinking about the problems thus posed for us, Mr. Outerbridge Horsey of BNA developed a possible tactic which I think has great merit and which I submit for your consideration.
He suggests that a paper be prepared stating the substance of our position on this matter in forceful terms—not only on legal and moral grounds, but on the grounds of practical security as well. It would point out, among other things, the effect of such a move on other countries in the area, on the status of Formosa and on the overseas Chinese colonies. It would include a cogent rebuttal of the “reduce international tension” line and put the trade argument in practical and realistic perspective. Such a paper could be handed by some of our [Page 740] Missions to certain Governments with a request for comments in detail on the substance of our position. The idea would be to force them to think through their own positions and put them more on the spot than we do by more informal (and generalized) oral appeals for support.
In discussing this, some fear was expressed that a request for comments might tend to “freeze” the position of the Governments thus addressed. This, together with the question of which Governments should be addressed, is a tactical matter which should be examined in due course. We have found general agreement thus far that the principle of such a paper so used is sound. We also believe that, properly handled, the operation could be very productive in terms of public affairs. This aspect, of course, would have to be handled most carefully after a thorough examination of all possible ramifications.
- Addressed to the Assistant Secretary of State for UN Affairs (Key) and the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson).↩