320/10–451: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
180. Dept requests you attempt work out with UK, ad referendum, precise procedure for dealing with Chi Rep issue in Sixth GA. When procedure has been agreed Dept will wish you approach other Dels, particularly Canada and Fr.
Fol, in order of preference, are alternative courses which wld be acceptable Dept and which in our opinion fall within scope moratorium arrangement with UK:
- (A)
- Motion to effect that Sixth GA decide take no action on any proposals to exclude Chi Natl Reps or seat Chi Commies in GA;
- (B)
- Motion to postpone consideration any such proposals for duration Sixth Session, along lines discussed below.
In event adoption (b) and possibly (a) we wld seek arrange for another Del make motion and US wld support.
In developing Chi Rep procedure you shd keep in mind fol points:
1. We believe it may be preferable, by pre-arrangement with Temporary Pres, for motion be made at outset session before any substantive proposals are introduced. This wld ensure that motion wld be put vote first and without procedural wrangle. After its adoption we wld hold that no substantive proposals cld be put vote. It is, of course, possible the USSR may nevertheless submit its proposal before procedural motion is made. In this event, in order ensure that substance is not put vote first, we cld put our motion in form adjournment debate under rules 75 and 78, which wld incidentally also limit debate, or alternatively cld simply ask GA under rule 91 to vote on motion before Sov proposal.
2. We are inclined think that action shd be in terms simple motion which cld apply whether or not there is Kor armistice. UK and US, in supporting motion, cld advance such reasons as each sees fit in light prevailing circumstances. FYI we understand from Brit Emb that UK wld prefer simple motion with no reference in text to Feb 1 resolution and continuing aggression.
[Page 265]3. Although we are aware that UK will probably prefer that action be sine die, we believe it most desirable that some time limit be specified in motion in order ensure that Sovs will not be able obstruct proceedings throughout session by repeatedly raising Chi Rep issue. Only time limit which seems feasible us wld be for duration sixth session.
4. Although UK will undoubtedly prefer that seating Chi Natl Reps be implied rather than included in text motion, we believe it highly desirable that specific provision this effect be made in motion in order minimize difficulties which are bound arise later in session and you shld make every effort obtain UK concurrence to this. Less desirable alternative to specific inclusion might be to arrange for temp pres make interpretative statement before passage motion to effect that its adoption wld mean that Chi Natl Reps wld sit for duration session.
Chi Rep issue is bound be raised again in Credentials Comite and in plenary when report Credentials Comite is considered, in form challenge validity Chi Natl credentials or Sov request that Chi Natl credentials be put vote separately. In both instances, in order continue avoid vote on substance, we wld take line that GA decision along above lines had settled Chi Rep issue, and that such Sov maneuvers are therefore out of order. It wld be more difficult take this position if GA has not taken specific action seat Chi Natl Reps, or, at very least, if no interpretative statement has been made by Pres before adoption motion.
6. [sic] It shd be noted that above arrangement excludes re-establishment spec Chi Rep Comite to which we are opposed.1
-
The Special Committee on representation of China (“the Committee of Seven”) had been established by the Fifth General Assembly in Resolution 490 (V) of September 19, 1950; for text, see telegram Delga 7, September 19, 1950, Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. ii, p. 301. Its membership was elected by secret ballot by the General Assembly on December 12, 1950 and consisted of Canada, Ecuador, India, Iraq, Mexico, the Philippines, and Poland. At its first meeting on December 15, 1950, the committee elected Sir Benegal Rau of India as chairman. It had never held another meeting. The question of its continuance was related to the question of the adjournment of the Fifth General Assembly which was still technically in session, pending the settlement of the several components of the China question: the Chinese Communist intervention in Korea, Formosa, the question of Chinese representation.
From September onwards periodic exchanges took place between the Department of State, the United States Mission at the United Nations (USUN), the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Trygve Lie, and other officials of the United Nations Secretariat, and representatives of other Member States, regarding the “winding-up” of the Fifth General Assembly; and in this context there was continuing discussion of the Chinese representation question. On October 2, in Washington, Ambassador Nasrollah Entezam, the president of the Fifth General Assembly, was informed explicitly by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) that the U.S. Government “would not be agreeable” to a prolongation of the life of the Special Committee (memorandum of conversation, October 2, 320/10–251). On October 5, the Deputy United States Representative at the United Nations (Gross) informally informed Secretary-General Lie that if the Special Committee felt it had to make a report, such a report should be limited to a brief statement of the facts, “namely, that the committee had met and elected its chairman, and that it had met again [on blank date] and having reached no conclusions had no recommendations to make.” (USUN telegram 426, October 5, 8:09 p. m., 320/10–551)
↩