CAB129-45 — Page 444

Page 444 in military operations against United Nations forces which are resisting

aggression.

I am interested in your suggestion of a "moratorium", but

am not clear what you have in mind.

thought on this a little further.

Perhaps you could develop your

Meanwhile, it seems to me that what

matters is that we should both do what we can (the initiative in ràising the

issue does not of course lie with either of us, but with Russia) to prevent

our known differences of view on this point from developing into a source

of misunderstanding between us. The legal arguments for seating them

there are in our view conclusive, though I should certainly not wish to dis-

play any enthusiasm in championing the claims of the Central People's ·

Government of China at the United Nations so long as they are set on their

present course. On the other hand, I could not act in such a way as might

imply support for the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's representative in the

United Nations speaks for China.

The present is, as you say, not the moment for a public declaration

Nevertheless, I believe that it is still of great

of our aims in Korea.

Public

importance to clarify our policy and state our aims (including constructive

proposals for a settlement) as soon as ever it is practicable.

opinion in this country, and I imagine in many others, is groping for guidance

as to where we stand in Korea and what we are hoping to achieve. The

opportunity may occur if the United Nations forces succeed in blunting the

Chinese offensive. Perhaps the Chinese may by then be in a more chastened

mood and less unwilling to negotiate, but whether they are so or not I believe

that we owe it to our peoples and to our troops to define our policy. I

therefore welcome your suggestion that further talks should be held with

Sir Oliver Franks about the form which this declaration should take. I

should like us to make suitable preparations for operation at the psychological

moment.

Page 444

Page 444

-6-

334

Par4458said to me that he thought oup differensfgon Far

Eastern policy had been narrowing in recent months. I think that this

is true, and I am glad. He went on to say however that he thought we

might now be at a cross roads and our paths might begin to diverge

again. I hope this is not so; at any rate, if the risk exists, the best

way to guard against it is for us to exchange occasional messages.

That is why I especially valued the candour and friendliness of your

message, and I have tried to reply in the same spirit.