【This entry was originally written on page March 22, 21, 20, and 19, 1961.]
Went to LaGuardia to meet George 【葉公超], who came at 9:50 a.m. We motored to my office in the Empire State Building, to talk about representation, with Hsueh Yu-chi 【薛毓麒] participating.
George showed me a summary record of his conversation with Dean Rusk and some notes which Lai 【賴家球],【1】 First Secretary, had taken of the talk that Lai had with State Department officials. I then stated my understanding; Rusk asks us to accept a de jure 2-China situation in the U.N, with the assurance that Taiwan would retain a seat in the U.N. and with the prospect that Taiwan would be the only de facto China in the U.N. George said my understanding was correct. I said that the government would be faced with an impossible choice, for the recovery of the mainland, with the implied denial of the legitimacy of the Red regime, had been made the raison d’etre of the government. Was there any way to engineer a tolerable transition? George remarked that it was Rusk’s point that Taiwan must seek a new orientation.
I told George that 7 or 8 years ago I pointed out to Chen Cheng 【陳誠] the dangers of playing up the theme of recovery of the mainland and suggested the addition of a second theme such as economic development.
George said that only last week Chen Cheng made a public speech expressing determination to counter-attack.
I thought, I said, it was strange that the U.S.A. and the U.K., in surveying the Far Eastern situation at this moment, should leave out of their consideration the famine on the mainland and its political effects. Reds are at this moment losing prestige at home. Why should the free world confer on them additional international prestige?
Then we analyzed Rusk’s approach. What did he have in mind in regard to the Security Council? That is the crux of the problem. The Reds may accept the Rusk approach if they should be assured of the Security Council seat. Could we not split that seat, since Rusk argues that China herself is factually split? George found the concept of splitting the seat strange. I explained that it involved a scheme of rotation.
How about Rusk’s procedure? Merely not to oppose inscription of “problem of Chinese representation?” Or try to put on some differently phrased item? If the first, the battle could be in one of the committees. George must find out before he returns to Taipei.
【注】
【1】賴家球（1922-1969），江西會昌人，政治大學外交系畢業。
1952-1961年為駐美大使館一等秘書，1961-1962年為參事。
1962-1966年為駐西雅圖總領事，1967年後任外交部情報司長至過世。
參考：〈外部情報司長 賴家球昨病逝〉，《中央日報》（1969年1月11日），3版；政治大學社會科學資料中心，中華民國政府官職資料庫；China Yearbook 1964-1965, p. 724。