330/1–1950: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
195. Soviet press has given full coverage Soviet UN walkout as reported Embtel 129 January 14 (to which reference not made Deptel 44 January 18) and subsequent Embtels 135, 151, and 190, January 16, 17 and 19.1
Malik speech January 10, SC session accorded one column Soviet press January 13, including following clear cut statement Soviet position: “Soviet representative also stated USSR delegation would not take part in work SC until Kmt representation were removed from it.[”] Accordance this position USSR delegation proposed expulsion from SC of Kmt representative. Malik speech January 12 SC session given one and half column Soviet press January 14. Story Malik’s walkout January 13 SC session covered 96 lines Soviet press January 15 which specifically quote Malik’s concluding remarks re “illegal” position Kmt representative and nonrecognition by Soviets of any SC decisions taken with Kmt representative present and include fact Soviet delegation left hall.
Subsequent Soviet walkouts ECOSOC committees briefly reported Soviet press.
[Page 199]No editorial treatment of issue has yet appeared Soviet press but Soviet position bolstered by Tass reports of Chinese Communist press (Embtels 151 January 17 and 166 January 18) comment on SC debate.
Soviet press stories carefully written avoid any mention Yugoslav contributing SC debate except from brief reference procedural move by “representative Tito clique” in January 10 SC session.
Obvious from foregoing that Soviets not playing down their UN walkout in Soviet press. Embassy impression is that, on contrary, Soviets feel they have found in question Chinese representative UN strong diplomatic and propaganda weapon achieve several purposes:
- (1)
- To aggravate as much as possible US embarrassment arising from our simultaneous support of the UN and the Kmt under present anomalous circumstances;
- (2)
- To use our stand on Kmt representative show how we allegedly attempt dominate UN in pursuance our “narrowly selfish political and military interests above interests of UN” (Malik speech SC January 13);
- (3)
- To exploit differences between British and ourselves on Chinese recognition question;
- (4)
- To place US in bad light vis-à-vis such non-Communist Asian countries as India;
- (5)
- To give relatively cheap support to their new Chinese ally and profit thereby in current Soviet negotiations with Mao Tse-tung;
- (6)
- And to quote perceptive Borba comment from Belgrade’s 60 January 17 to Department; “sharpen relations between West and New China”.
From Malik emphasis on presence Kmt representative undermining “prestige and authority SC and UN as a whole” as quoted Soviet press January 15, Embassy inclined to view that Soviets will, in their curiously contradictory way, treat their walkout as a noble gesture in defense of UN principles, and doubts that Soviets consider that in taking this step they are running serious risk of having to remain out of UN permanently as result stand taken against Kmt representation. Feeling that world tide is with them on China recognition, they are probably endeavoring squeeze fullest possible advantage to themselves from situation and ensure maximum difficulties for US and friends by dramatizing present anomalous position China UN at minimum risk long term Soviet interests. Thus Embassy believes that Soviets consider their walkout as only temporary and that if circumstances should necessitate an indefinite prolongation of the “temporary” walkout, the onus will not be on Soviet Union, but on US for refusing in what Soviets may consider the light of world opinion to accept the reality of the new China.
Sent Department 195, Department pass USUN 8.
- None printed. In telegram 44, the Department had requested the Embassy’s analysis and comment on Soviet press coverage of the Soviet walkouts at the United Nations. The Department was particularly interested “any indication walkout permanent or temporary.” (330/1–1650)↩