Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 1

S/S–NSC files, lot 63 D 351, NSC 5429 Series

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson) to the Secretary of State¹

top secret

[Washington,] November 30, 1954.

Subject:

• NSC 5429/3²

In connection with NSC 5429/3, I submit the following recommendations for your guidance in meeting with the Council on this subject.

• Page 3, section 4 d: FE has no evidence of “existing” areas of conflict or divergence of interest between USSR and Communist China and therefore suggests that the word “existing” be omitted.
• Page 3, section 4 e: How does the US create “political and social forces” as this section recommends? FE thinks this paragraph is so vague and possibly misleading that it should be left out. Should the decision be made to leave it in however, the phrase “and of economic conditions contributing to creation of such forces” should be inserted after the phrase “political and social forces”.
• Page 4, section 5 a: FE feels that the importance to the security of the area of keeping Indonesia out of Communist control justifies adding the following sentence to this paragraph:

  “And recognizing the importance to the security of the off-shore island chain of keeping Indonesia out of Communist control”.

• Page 4, section 5 c: FE recommends that the phrase “and restrain the Chinese Nationalists from such actions” be omitted from the last sentence of this section. I recall that when I went over the preliminary draft of this paper with you, you agreed that this phrase should be omitted.³
• Page 6, section 5 f: FE feels that this NSC recommendation might be construed as cutting across the power of the Chief Executive. Consideration might be given to rephrasing it along the following lines:

  “The NSC recommends that in the event of unprovoked Communist armed attack on the personnel, aircraft or vessels of the US, that the President should, as circumstances warrant, promptly take …”⁴

• Page 6, section 5 h: FE recommends that the words “in consonance with U.S. treaty obligation” be inserted after the words “appropriate action” in the middle of this paragraph. FE feels that to omit this language would appear to ignore commitments already made under the ANZUS and Manila Pacts.
• Page 7, section 5 i: FE recommends that the phrase “and other elements” be omitted or, failing this, the following sentence be added:

  “It is recognized that the support of the ‘other elements’ referred to requires a close and strict coordination between U.S. departments concerned and that the primary responsibility of the Department of State is emphasized”.

• Page 8, section 6 e: FE favors retaining the bracketed sentence in this paragraph.
• Page 9, section 6 f: FE favors retaining the bracketed phrase in this paragraph.
• Page 10, section 7: FE does not concur with the philosophy implicit in this section. Although the proposal is merely to study the terms of a settlement with Communist China, its inclusion in the NSC paper would give the scheme sufficient blessing to create the impression that the US was actively considering a negotiated settlement with Communist China at this time. FE does not believe that it is possible to negotiate at this time a general settlement with Communist China satisfactory to the US. The specific suggestions contained in the subparagraphs of this section would not be agreed to by the Peiping regime under present circumstances regardless of what pressures were brought, short of force. Moreover, our allies would probably not agree even to those increased pressures we propose.
• Page 12, section 8 a: FE recommends that the word “only” be inserted after the phrase “but deal with each” and that the word “necessary” be inserted after the phrase “where the regime is a”.
• Page 12, section 8 c: (first alternative). FE recommends that the phrase “provided that the level of controls applicable to the USSR is maintained” be omitted. This phrase was not included in the draft paper which I discussed with you. Presumably, it was intended to put a floor under the level of controls to which other free world countries might descend but its inclusion in this paper could also connote acceptance of the fact that controls might be allowed to go to this level if divisive influences are to be averted. Thus, the COCOM level would represent a ceiling instead of a floor. FE also recommends that the additional sentence proposed by FOA be omitted.
• Page 12, section 8 c: (second alternative). FE feels that while there is much in this alternative proposal which is desirable, it is doubtful that in the absence of further aggressive moves by Communist China or the Soviet Union, that we could get our allies to increase substantially the level of their existing controls. A serious attempt in this direction, FE feels, might well spell an end to their cooperation with us on multilateral controls. Therefore, we favor retention of the first alternative with the indicated revisions.
• Page 14, section 8 d: FE recommends that the phrase “and restrain the Chinese Nationalists from such actions” be deleted from this section. I recall that you did not approve this language when it appeared in the draft which I discussed with you. FE also suggests that the phrase “or in his absence the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense” be added at the end of this section.
• Page 14, section 8 e: FE recommends that the following be added to this section.

  “Taking into account the rapidly developing situation in the area and recognizing that much of the policy outlined under Annex A is now being undertaken”.

• Page 14, section 10 a: FE objects to this paragraph insofar as it applies to negotiation of a general settlement with Communist China. As indicated above, FE does not believe that the possibility now exists for negotiation of a satisfactory general settlement of major issues with Communist China. We feel, therefore, that it is misleading to state that we must “keep open” such a possibility. FE recommends as a minimum that the words “Communist China” be deleted from this paragraph, and feels it would be preferable to eliminate the whole paragraph.
• Page 15, section 10 b: FE supports the proposal that this section be deleted.
• Page 15, section 10 i, Annex A: FE believes that this paragraph must be considered in the light of your statement at your press conference on November 16th when you pointed out that the US is not a party to the Geneva agreements and is therefore not legally in a position to object or protest violations.
• Page 18, Annex B: The Department of Commerce appears to be arguing that the US and its allies should either greatly increase economic pressures against Communist China or relax them. Since it is probably impossible to get our allies to increase them, it is argued that we should “capitalize” on relaxation through a different application as suggested in section 7, page 10. FE does not concur in these views.

1. Drafted by Robertson, Martin, Young, and Robert J. G. McClurkin, Deputy Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs.
2. Dated Nov. 19, p. 972.
3. In the margin next to this paragraph is the following handwritten notation: “I do not object to this paragraph as written W[alter] S. R[obertson] “.
4. Ellipsis in the source text.