793B.00/11–2550: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in India

secret

794. UN Gen Comite voted unanimously Nov 24 to postpone consideration Tibet problem. This action based largely upon Indian Rep’s assertion latest note from Peiping to his Govt indicated hope; still exists for peaceful settlement.1 Such settlement, he believed, cld best be promoted by deferring for present placing item on agenda. UK Rep gave as additional reasons postponement desirability consider further whether question Tibet was problem for SC or GA, need for obtaining further info, and obscurity of legal situation.

Fol Comite’s vote, Gross said he had supported postponement because India had advised Comite there was still hope for peaceful settlement. Otherwise US, consistent with its policy in UN, wld have voted to place question on agenda.

In pre-mtg discussion Rau informed Gross he was encouraged by “second note” his Govt had reed re Tibet of more friendly character,2 by statement of CCP Rep on arriving in US,3 and by CCP release of US POW’s in N. Korea4 as showing more friendly attitude than expected which gave some hope for negots. Rau read tel from his; FonOff stating CCP now indicated willingness negotiate, that their advance has not been beyond boundaries of China and Tibet, as CCP understands them, and that this situation will most effectively be negotiated on bilateral basis outside UN.

Indian Rep’s recommendation that Tibet problem be postponed apparently based upon Peiping note dated Nov 16 (urtels 1281, Nov 21 and 1316, Nov 25).5 Presumably change in position from that [Page 584] taken Nov 19 (urtel 1276 Nov 20) result of delay in receipt of Nov 16 note or reconsideration policy. Dept desires you continue evince active informal interest in Tibet situation and suggests in ur discretion you informally review present situation with Bajpai with view obtaining indication future Indian attitude and actions.

Acheson
  1. Reference is to a note dated November 16 to the Government of India from the People’s Republic of China; text in Documents on International Affairs, 1949–1950, p. 554.
  2. Reference is to the note cited in footnote 1, above.
  3. For related documentation, see vol. vii, pp. 1237 ff.
  4. See ibid .
  5. Neither telegram printed; they conveyed the text of the Chinese note of November 16.