Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The United Nations; The Western Hemisphere, Volume II

CFM Files, Lot M 88, Box 155

Minutes of Tripartite Ministerial Meeting, Paris, French Foreign Office, November 6, 1951, 10:30 a.m.

Paris, November 6, 1951, 10:30 a.m.

top secret
NoVT M–l

Present:

• France
• Foreign Minister Schuman, M. Parodi, M. de la Tournelle, Ambassadors Bonnet, Massigli and Chauvel, M. Broustra, M. Maurice Schumann, M. de Bourbon Busset, and for part of the meeting, Mr. Lacoste.
• United Kingdom
• Foreign Secretary Eden, Messrs. Lloyd, Dixon, Shuckburgh, Bowker, Jebb, Parrott, and U.K. Ambassador to France,
• United States
• Secretary, Ambassadors Bruce, Gifford and Jessup, Assistant Secretary Perkins, Mr. Raynor. For portions of meeting, Messrs. Ridgway Knight, Lewis Jones and Wainhouse.

General

Mr. Schuman opened the meeting by stating that this was not a conference, but an informal meeting for a frank exchange of views. He suggested that we commence with the urgent problems now coming up in the U.N.

[Here follows discussion of a prior agenda item.]

Chinese Representation

Mr. Schuman opened this discussion by suggesting that this matter would probably be raised in the Credentials Committee.

Mr. Acheson countered with the statement that he thought it would arise in the opening plenary session of the Assembly this afternoon. He expressed the view that Mr. Vishinsky probably would attempt to get the floor to raise this question at the very opening of the meeting, Mr. Acheson felt that we should attempt to anticipate this move by taking the initiative in putting in our own resolution. He said he had in mind a resolution which would postpone the question without going into its merits. He said he would ask General Romulo¹ to make this motion, and that he would promptly support it.

Mr. Eden asked Sir Gladwyn Jebb to comment. Jebb said he thought this course of action was a possibility, but that we were confronted by the technical point that the item is not on the agenda. He wondered therefore if it would not be better to let Vishinsky get the floor and then put in our resolution as a procedural motion to end the matter. He added, however, that this was further complicated by President Entezam’s feeling that the resolution was not procedural as it contained a specific date and that therefore a Soviet resolution would be voted on first. He concluded by saying that if Entezam was not convinced on this point, there appeared to be two alternatives: (a) the U.S. plan, (b) following the past procedure and adjourning the question sine die.

Secretary Acheson said he thought President Entezam was confused. He would agree that if our resolution followed Vishinsky’s, it would not fall under rule 75, and that Entezam then was correct. He said, however, that this would not hold if our resolution was put in first. It would then have priority.

Mr. Eden observed that he did not think that any resolution Mr. Vishinsky would put forward would obtain much support. However he felt that some delegations, even some of the Dominions, would vote against or abstain on our resolution if it should be put first.

Mr. Schuman commented that the only objection to the British plan would be that Vishinsky could repeat the same process every day.

Secretary Acheson confirmed that thought and added that it could be done in each committee each day as well as in the Assembly itself. He said he felt, therefore, that what we had in mind would have to be done sooner or later and he felt it was better to do it today and get it over with, because each time Vishinsky raised the matter, he would attempt to squeeze some propaganda out of it.

Mr. Eden then said that he would agree to the U.S. proposal if both Mr. Acheson and Mr. Schuman felt it was the best thing to do, saying that he did not “mind it very much”. The matter was then agreed.

The U.K. then raised a point about the language “Chinese Communist Representatives” in the resolution, pointing out that in U.N. resolutions in the past, which the U.S. have voted for, the full name of the Chinese Communist government had been used. After some discussion of this point, the Secretary indicated that while we preferred our original wording, he would be willing to tell Romulo that we would accept the inclusion of the full name of the Chinese Commie Government if Romulo agreed to put the resolution in that form.

[Here follows discussion of other agenda items.]

1. Brig. Gen. Carlos P. Romulo, Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs; Permanent Representative to the United Nations; and Chairman, Philippine Delegation to the Sixth Regular Session of the General Assembly.