Ask the Scholar
Page 32 of 228
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
ARCHIVES "NATIONAL AND I
RECORDS
CONPIDENTI
=
SERVICE*
-25-
a large part of the territory still lies within the juris -
diction, nominal and otherwise, of the National Government,
and therefore you cannot at this stage of the game get a
repetition of the Czech case, where, you will recall, the
credentials of the outgoing government were withdraum
largely on the initiative of the Secretariat on the basis
of the fact that the United Nations does not recognize
regimes as such. It recognizes states, but here is a state
that at the moment is a divided one, so that would not seen
to apply. That being so, the question would move on the
attitude of the several powers in this question.
MR. DECKER: Are we then to assume that we really
have a take-it-or-leave-it proposition so far as the Com-
munists are concerned in their demanding de jure recogni-
tion, setting limitations? Is there any situation in
which -e unilaterally grant one or the other?
MR. BUTTER ORTH: Our recognition is not a unilateral
matter, it is a mutual matter. Their exact terms are by
no means clear from their brief and somewhat tersely,
curtly worded note and it is clear they do not encompass
by any means all of the territory of China yet. It is not
at all clear what their attitude is designed to be towards
aliens' obligations.
MR. COLEGROVE: Did not the State Department throw
away a strategic advantage in withdrawing our consulates?
There are adventuresome young men in the Foreign Service
who are willing to take the risk and there are experienced
consuls who know how to get along in countries like China
even though they have little contact with their Government.
We know how difficult it is to resume consular relations
with Communist countries. We have had some unpleasant
experiences about that. Would it not have been better to
have left these consulates scattered through China as
listening posts or as posts which we already hold even
during a time when we have little communication with
Communist China? And still again, are we not going to
have a great deal of difficulty in re-opening these con-
sulates after we try to get a modus vivendi for trade vith
Communist China some time in the near future?
MR. BUTTERWORTH: I shouldn't imagine that, if it is
the policy of the Chinese Communist Government to have
foreign consulates in these places, and that is not clear
yet, it vould be difficult should recognition take place
to obtain the same facilities that other powers have. On
the other hand, your reference to listening posts really
gets
Page data
- Page
- 32
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- b382e4cd73909ad4
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 750241
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "750241",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750241",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Foreign Affairs File, 1940-1953: China: Record of Round-Table Discussion by 25 Far East Experts with the Department of State on \"American Policy Toward China\": October 6, 7 and 8, 1949",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750241",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 228,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "750241",
"label": "Foreign Affairs File, 1940-1953: China: Record of Round-Table Discussion by 25 Far East Experts with the Department of State on \"American Policy Toward China\": October 6, 7 and 8, 1949",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750241"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "750241",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750241",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Foreign Affairs File, 1940-1953: China: Record of Round-Table Discussion by 25 Far East Experts with the Department of State on \"American Policy Toward China\": October 6, 7 and 8, 1949",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750241",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-001.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-001.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-001.jpg",
"imageCount": 228,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/750241",
"naId": 750241,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 32,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602191/750241/750241-01-032.jpg",
"mediaId": "b382e4cd73909ad4",
"ocrText": "ARCHIVES \"NATIONAL AND I\nRECORDS\nCONPIDENTI\n=\nSERVICE*\n-25-\na large part of the territory still lies within the juris -\ndiction, nominal and otherwise, of the National Government,\nand therefore you cannot at this stage of the game get a\nrepetition of the Czech case, where, you will recall, the\ncredentials of the outgoing government were withdraum\nlargely on the initiative of the Secretariat on the basis\nof the fact that the United Nations does not recognize\nregimes as such. It recognizes states, but here is a state\nthat at the moment is a divided one, so that would not seen\nto apply. That being so, the question would move on the\nattitude of the several powers in this question.\nMR. DECKER: Are we then to assume that we really\nhave a take-it-or-leave-it proposition so far as the Com-\nmunists are concerned in their demanding de jure recogni-\ntion, setting limitations? Is there any situation in\nwhich -e unilaterally grant one or the other?\nMR. BUTTER ORTH: Our recognition is not a unilateral\nmatter, it is a mutual matter. Their exact terms are by\nno means clear from their brief and somewhat tersely,\ncurtly worded note and it is clear they do not encompass\nby any means all of the territory of China yet. It is not\nat all clear what their attitude is designed to be towards\naliens' obligations.\nMR. COLEGROVE: Did not the State Department throw\naway a strategic advantage in withdrawing our consulates?\nThere are adventuresome young men in the Foreign Service\nwho are willing to take the risk and there are experienced\nconsuls who know how to get along in countries like China\neven though they have little contact with their Government.\nWe know how difficult it is to resume consular relations\nwith Communist countries. We have had some unpleasant\nexperiences about that. Would it not have been better to\nhave left these consulates scattered through China as\nlistening posts or as posts which we already hold even\nduring a time when we have little communication with\nCommunist China? And still again, are we not going to\nhave a great deal of difficulty in re-opening these con-\nsulates after we try to get a modus vivendi for trade vith\nCommunist China some time in the near future?\nMR. BUTTERWORTH: I shouldn't imagine that, if it is\nthe policy of the Chinese Communist Government to have\nforeign consulates in these places, and that is not clear\nyet, it vould be difficult should recognition take place\nto obtain the same facilities that other powers have. On\nthe other hand, your reference to listening posts really\ngets"
}