Office of the Historian

330/7–2950: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France 1

secret   priority
Washington, July 29, 1950—8 p. m.

534. USUN has been negotiating with other SC Dels re situation which might arise in SC if returning Soviet rep, who sits as Pres at all SC meetings during month of Aug, seeks use his presidential prerogatives to unseat Chi Natl Rep and replace him with Chi Commie.

While it is impossible predict exactly how Sov Rep might bring up this issue, and exactly what course procedural debate might take, essential elements of problem will clearly be as follows. SC Pres may abuse his power to make procedural ruling to exclude Chi Natl Rep, in hope that challenge of his ruling will not receive necessary seven votes in SC to become effective. Thus his ruling wld stand and, by this procedural device, Chi representation question in SC wld be settled.

Opposition to Pres will undoubtedly take form of disputing his power to make ruling on a representation question. Basis opposition will undoubtedly be rule 17 SC rules procedure which states: “Any rep on the SC, to whose credentials objection has been made within the SC, shall continue to sit with the same rights as other reps until the SC has decided the matter”. Reasoning wld probably be that SC Pres, like any other member SC, must raise objection to credentials in normal way and that this objection must be supported by seven SC members if it is to result in an SC decision.

Pls stress to FonOff fact that we wld consider it most unwise to debate Chi rep question at this crucial moment in UN operation against aggression. Moreover, we have always considered that Chi rep question shd be dealt with on its merits and not by procedural dodges and that proper constitutional majority shd decide for each UN organ. We have also stated that veto does not apply to this subject in SC. We consider it inadmissible that SC Pres shd precipitate decision by procedural [Page 251] trick. You may state that US will be prepared to challenge in SC any presidential ruling of this nature. In line with our feeling that this not the time for consideration this question, we hope that govt to which you are accredited will not at this time support any motion which if adopted wld have effect of changing Chi representation.

Acheson

  1. Repeated “for action” to Cairo (93) and Oslo (72); repeated “for information” to London (542), Taipei (90), and USUN (79).

    In telegram 540, July 30, 8 p. m., the Ambassador reported “I discussed this question with Parodi tonight. Instructions have been sent to Chauvel favorable to our attitude.” (330/7–3050)

    ↩