611.00/9–150: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in India
priority
330. Ur conversation with Bajpai Aug 24 re Pannikar’s interpretation of Chi Commie attitude illuminating. It wld be very helpful [Page 479] to know how much of Pannikar’s report is based on info conveyed to him by Peiping auths and how much is merely his estimate of their thinking. Dept suggests that, if you have not already done so, you review with Bajpai President’s Aug 27 letter to Austin transmitted New Delhi same date. At discretion continue ur conversation with Bajpai this subj along fol lines.
US Govt is not irrevocably committed either to support or opposition any particular polit group in China. Altho Communism is repugnant to Amer way of life, our primary concern with other nations is that they act internationally in accord principles and purposes set forth UN Charter. US in past century has maintained friendly relations with all ruling Chi Govts. For first time in more than century US lacks both consular and dipl reps in mainland China. Amer policy consistently has opposed domination or dismemberment China by any power or powers. This remains keystone of US policy re China. US as loyal member UN is bound to oppose aggression in Asia and elsewhere. US policy therefore purposes [proposes?] also that China shld not engage in aggression against its neighbors in Far East, thereby threatening peace and progress. Peiping regime has manifested only bitterest hostility toward US. This hostility cld hardly be deliberate choice of Chi people as whole. Our own attitude toward Peiping regime results not from any basic prejudice, but rather is logical consequence of actions and attitudes of that regime itself. US views with deep concern indications that China is falling under domination of a fon power and Peiping rulers harbor aggressive intentions against China’s neighbors. If there are doubts that Peiping regime is in fact independent govt these doubts arise from overt actions and utterances of that regime. If US as well as China’s immed neighbors are alike apprehensive of Chi Commie open or covert aggression, this apprehension arises from Chi Commies own acts. To take case in point, had Peiping joined majority of nations in condemning North Korean aggression, or had it at least refrained from associating itself with that aggression, our attitude might now be different.
It is not US opposition that is or has been real obstacle to reps of Peiping regime sitting in UN, but rather the fact that US doubts and misgivings discussed above are shared by majority of free nations of world, and the fact that Peiping’s internatl behavior and attitude toward internatl obligations make suspect Peiping’s bona fides. Peiping cld, of course, take concrete measures to lessen these doubts whenever it might wish.
Measures by US pursuant to President’s statement June 27 were undertaken for urgent milit reasons to avoid direct threat to security Pacific area and to US forces performing their lawful and necessary functions relating to UNSC resolution on Korea. They were designed to localize conflict Korea. It was made explicitly clear that those [Page 480] measures comprehended not only prevention of attack on Formosa but its milit neutralization with 7th Fleet insuring cessation air and sea activities from Formosa against mainland.
Peiping regime has publicly rejected concept of neutralization by announcing its determination to seize Formosa by force notwithstanding US efforts to neutralize it and by continuing preparations for offensive attack. In these circumstances and in view of heavy commitment of US forces in Korea, US may provide such limited milit matériel as might be required meet deficiencies in defense of island. Note this wld be for defense alone, not aggression against mainland.
Measures undertaken by US are without prejudice to settlement by peaceful means of long-term polit status of island, as is evidenced by readiness US to have question Formosa considered by UN. These measures are not to be interpreted as stepping-stone for US entry into mainland or preparation to put Nat Govt back on mainland with US support. US values highly its friendship with Chi people and Commie China need not fear US milit action against China unless it lends itself to indirect or direct aggression against neighboring countries, in which case US wld, of course, have to consider its obligations under UN Charter, as well as its own interest in the security of the Pacific. Wld be interesting to know why, if Peiping regime finds present state Sino-Amer relations unsatisfactory, they still acting along old lines.
Long history US relations with China and President’s statement of July 19 respecting Formosa constitute eloquent testimony that we neither have been nor are preparing any aggressive action. Our support on Aug 29 for including on SC agenda “Complaint of Armed Invasion of Taiwan” is further strong evidence our good faith. Note finally that President in press conference Aug 31 said it will not be necessary keep 7th Fleet in Formosa Strait, if Korean affair is settled.
It wld be of considerable interest to Dept to get further reaction from Bajpai re matter, and particularly to receive any indications he may have on reasons for Pannikar’s assurance that Chi Commies desire peace and are resisting Sov pressure to attack Formosa and thus become involved (for Sov ends) in hostilities with US.