Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume V, United Nations, 1969–1972

292. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the United Nations¹

Washington, August 15, 1970, 1544Z.

132973. Ref: USUN 1643, 1644, 1652 (Notal).²

1. Belgian Chargé Lion called on Asst. Secy De Palma August 14 to present text of proposed Belgian Chirep res. Presentation followed closely that given USUN 1643, except that Lion explicitly described formula as “One China–Two Govts.” He added GOB does not intend formally inscribe until consultation with friendly govts completed; acknowledged domestic political considerations figure in initiative; added Chile to list of those already consulted; and (in informal conversation with Dept off) stated he knew of no plans float res with Peking.

2. In reply, De Palma observed US had seen no real shift on Albanian res and considered vote this year would not differ significantly from last session. While we wished defer definite reply until further study of text, and would give that reply through Ambassador Yost in NY, following were our preliminary observations:

(A) View lack of any real drift toward Albanian res, we did not believe res such as this necessary in order protect GRC UN position as stated in Belgian presentation;

(B) We feared introduction of res at this session might force parties to take hard stand and thereby interrupt evolution toward possible consensus solution to problem.

(C) As practical matter, res did not seem likely to pass (as Belgians themselves recognized), but could have effect of clouding status of GRC and thereby increase chances for expulsion, a result which Belgians note they oppose.

(D) View foregoing, US preliminary view was that res should not be offered, but we would make formal reply at later date and hoped GOB would keep us informed of responses received from others as well as their more specific plans for tabling.

3. GRC Ambassador Chow called on Asst Secy De Palma shortly thereafter stating view that Albanian res likely be defeated by “comfortable margin”, but expressing fear Belgian initiative might confuse the issue and lead to situation detrimental GRC interests. His govt wished ask USG try to dissuade Belgians. De Palma noted we had given Belgians only preliminary assessment today, tenor of which was certainly to dissuade them, and would be making more detailed and definitive reply in New York.³ He asked GRC views on best way deal with problem in event Belgians could not be persuaded withdraw.

Rogers

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 6 CHICOM. Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Harvey J. Feldman; cleared by Armitage, Thomas E. McNamara, Melvyn Levitsky, and Linwood R. Starbird; and approved by Assistant Secretary De Palma. Also sent to Brussels and Taipei and repeated to London, Ottawa, Rome, Santiago, Tokyo, and Hong Kong.
2. Telegram 1643, August 12, reported on the meeting with Belgian Representative Longerstaey during which he presented the preliminary draft of the resolution. Telegram 1644, August 12, transmitted the text of the resolution. Telegram 1652, August 13, not printed. (All ibid.)
3. On August 19 Yost was instructed: “Request you seek early opportunity reply formally to Belgians re proposed Chirep res. Reply should state we note GOB describes initiative as being ‘One China-Two Govts’ formula, but actual wording of res somewhat different in operative paragraphs. In any event, we believe res unhelpful for reasons given para 2 reftel, and request GOB re-consider decision offer res.” (Telegram 134931 to USUN, August 19; ibid.) Yost reported on his August 20 meeting with Longerstaey in telegram 1705, August 20. (Ibid.)