320.2–AC/4–2051
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Special Assistant on United Nations Affairs in the Bureau of European Affairs (Allen)
Subject: Work of Additional Measures Committee—UN Recommendations for Economic Sanctions against Communist China
| Participants: | Ambassador Henri Bonnet1 |
| Mr. Pierre Millet, Counselor, French Embassy | |
| Mr. John D. Hickerson, UNA | |
| Mr. David Popper, UNP | |
| Mr. Robert W. Barnett, CA | |
| Mr. Ward P. Allen, EUR |
Mr. Hickerson outlined to Ambassador Bonnet, who had called at [Page 1971] our request, the US position regarding the work of the Additional Measures Committee and our desire for early action on economic sanctions.
Referring to the fact that the US has placed a full embargo on all commodities to Communist China, Mr. Hickerson said that frankly we would desire that all other countries do the same, but since this was highly unlikely at present we were prepared, in order to obtain the widest possible agreement, to propose or support a resolution providing for an embargo on atomic energy materials, petroleum, and arms, ammunition and implements of war, and items useful in their production. In outlining our view that each country would determine which of its commodities fall within the last vague category, he expressed the hope that the language would be given the widest possible interpretation. Although the countries would report periodically to the AMC on the implementation of the embargo, we did not contemplate that the AMC would, itself, communicate with individual governments.
As to the question of timing, Mr. Hickerson, referring to the three months’ delay since the passage of the Resolution, explained that we felt strongly that there should be an early meeting of the AMC, on or about April 30. This would allow next week for private consultations so as to avoid, if possible, public disagreement with our friends in the Committee. We would hope the Committee could thereafter proceed with reasonable speed and report promptly to the GA on recommendations for an embargo along the above lines.
Ambassador Bonnet replied that he understood it to be his government’s impression that now the AMC Subcommittee has agreed that economic measures should have priority, the Subcommittee itself would proceed to study in more detail the nature and extent of such possible measures. He questioned whether the full Committee was the proper place for this. Referring to the general character of our proposed resolution, the Subcommittee’s limited terms of reference and the small size of the full Committee, we sought to remove this misunderstanding.
Ambassador Bonnet referred to the feeling in many quarters that for the AMC thus to accelerate its pace would put an end to any possibility of success of the GOC in bringing about a cessation of hostilities. Mr. Hickerson stated that we frankly disagreed with that view, held by the UK and others, and were seeking to dissuade them from it. To maintain a normal pace in the AMC work does not at all signify that the GOC has failed or should cease its efforts. It should continue to try at any opportunity so long as hostilities continue. In our judgment if AMC activity has any effect on the Peiping Government at all, it will be rather a salutary one in demonstrating the continued [Page 1972] firm resolution of the UN not to give in to the aggressors. Recent Peiping or Moscow inspired suggestions that the aggression Resolution must be repealed before there can be a peaceful settlement indicate that the Communists may be probing for weakness and division in the UN’s position. What better means of countering than that to move ahead in the AMC?
A further advantage of prompt action from the public relations point of view is to provide opportunity for France and others, in implementing a UN resolution, to publicize some of the action they are already taking through COCOM to control trade with China.
Ambassador Bonnet expressed understanding with our point of view and awareness of the impact of our domestic situation on the problem. He stated he would advise his government immediately, adding, however, that he was not unduly optimistic regarding their reaction. He felt they would probably share the UK’s concern at the effect on the GOC’s efforts and would not share our “guess” that AMC action would not prejudice the possibilities of peaceful settlement.
- French Ambassador to the United States.↩