A storm of debate had raged through the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly for two weeks. It was the 16th time the so-called China representation question had been before the international organization. The Albanian sponsors of the resolution to expel the Republic of China and seat the Chinese Communists couldn't think of anything new to say. Neither could the Soviet Union. In fact the latter, preoccupied with its denunciations of Peiping's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" and the Red Guards, gave scant lip service to Peiping's cause.
Canada, which has been selling huge quantities of wheat to the Chinese Reds, thought it had a new idea. Let us seat the Peiping regime in both the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Canadians suggested, while permitting the Republic of China to retain its General Assembly seat. To avoid the two-China label to which both the Republic of China and Peiping have objected, it was to be stipulated that each would be representing only the territory and people over which it had effective control.
Such semantic evasion was quickly denounced by the Republic of China and Peiping. Behind the scenes, the United States-shuddering at the thought of Red China in the driver's seat at the Security Council and Red Guards roaming the halls of the U.N. as guides and pages—urged Canada not to introduce the resolution. The Canadians began to wonder whether they could succeed without U.S. support. Furthermore, another and less drastic proposal had been advanced by Italy and five other countries. This resolution, which came to a vote, did not mention two Chinas. It called for a study of Chinese representation by a high-level committee that would report its findings and recommendations to the 1967 General Assembly. Obviously, such a committee couldn't find alternatives other than those that the United Nations has had all along: (1) maintenance of the status quo in which the Republic of China occupies both General Assembly and Security Council seats, (2) two Chinas or (3) expulsion of the Republic of China and the seating of the Peiping regime, just as the Communists have been demanding year after year. Supporters of the Italian resolution were two-China advocates; in reality the proposal was a sugar-coated prescription that was supposed to lead to two Chinas in 1967.
With debate and jockeying at an end, four votes were taken on November 29. The first was a roll call on the question of requiring a two-thirds majority to pass the Albanian resolution to seat Peiping and expel the Republic of China. The vote was 66 in favor and 48 opposed with 7 abstentions. The same two-thirds requirement was adopted in 1965 by a count of 56 to 49. This meant that the Republic of China had picked up 10 votes and the Communists had lost 1.
Peiping Rejected
Next came the crucial ballot on an immediate change in representation. In 1965, the vote had been 47 to 47 (it would have required a two-thirds majority to seat Peiping). This time the Communists got 46 votes (a loss of one) and the Republic of China 57 (again, a gain of 10). The abstentions totaled 17 and Laos absented itself.
Third was a Communist defensive move against the Italian move to establish a study committee. Syria suggested that this also should be considered an important question requiring a two-thirds majority. The General Assembly agreed, 51 to 37 with 30 abstentions, on a show of hands.
When the Italian committee proposal was put to a vote in the fourth and final ballot, it was decisively beaten by 62 to 34 with 25 abstentions. This was one of the most interesting votes ever cast in the United Nations. The Republic of China and the supporters of Peiping voted together on the negative side, thereby demonstrating the total unacceptability of two Chinas.
Taipei was jubilant at the smashing victory, which put the Republic of China back where it was in 1960 with a 55.3 per cent plurality of the vote.
The China News said: "Justice has triumphed at the United Nations. The noble principles of the Charter are not yet dead... The China issue should be put on the United Nations shelf and left there. It is not really a question for the U.N. anyway. Settlement can only be found in final resolution of the Chinese Communist rebellion against the Republic of China, and the return of democratic, constitutional, and legitimate government to the Chinese mainland."
The China Post said: "The defeat of the Communist bloc's attempt to bring Red China into the United Nations represents a triumph of reason and justice ... The Chinese Central Government in Taipei is the only legitimate government representative of the Chinese people, including the suffering masses on the mainland, while the tyrannical Peiping regime, being a rebel organization and an aggressor long condemned by the United Nations, is not in the least qualified for U.N. membership."
Favorable Vote
The Tzu Li Wan Pao said: "The vote was very favorable to us. Peiping, which is condemned by the U.N. as an aggressor, again is barred from the door of the U.N. Foreign Minister Wei Tao-ming was in personal command for this diplomatic battle. His speeches were forceful. Amid the cheers of victory, let us pay our respects to Minister Wei and the other members of our delegation at the U.N."
The Ta Hua Wan Pao said: 'The U.N. is a place where justice still may be found. We have been embarrassed by this representation question year after year. It seems the only way to avoid such embarrassment is to undertake counterattack against the mainland and overthrow the Peiping regime."
The Min Tsu Wan Pao said: "The U.N. still upholds international justice and adheres to international law. The appeasers have been thoroughly defeated. However, we must redouble our efforts, heighten our vigilance, and win over more friendly nations to solidify our legitimate position in the United Nations."
The Lien Ho Pao said: "Victory in the United Nations has bolstered our confidence and courage to face the future. Peiping's purges on the China mainland and its infiltration and subversion of other countries have led a majority of the world's nations to see the true face of the Chinese Communists. The debate on the China representation issue has helped a majority of the world's nations understand the importance of the Republic of China and thus has promoted our international prestige."
Three days after the voting, the China News presented this editorial analysis of what happened:
"Of the several United Nations votes concerned with China representation, the most interesting was that rejecting the Italian proposal for a high-level committee study of the issue.
"The vote was 62 to 34 against the proposal with 25 abstentions. This was the most decisive of the four China votes.
"On the losing side were some of the Republic of China's closest friends, including the United States, Japan, Turkey, and 14 of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. The United Kingdom was among the abstainers.
"On the winning side were the Republic of China, such good friends as Australia, the Philippines and Spain, the Communist bloc in solid array, and an assortment of neutralists, including India. Most of the African states voted against the Italian resolution or abstained.
"This is one of the few instances in which the Republic of China and the Communists have lined up on the same side. Obviously, the reason was the Italian proposal's implication of a two-China solution.
"Two Chinas are rejected by Peiping and its accomplices as well as by the Republic of China. The irony is that Peiping's supporters lined up solidly against two Chinas. while the Republic of China's backers were split and the United States voted against our position.
No Compromise
"Perhaps some good will come from this experience. The Communists will not abandon their efforts to seat Peiping and expel the Republic of China. But we have every right to hope that Italy, Japan, the United States, and other free and democratic countries will stop trying to find a compromise that would put Peiping in the United Nations.
"No such compromise exists. Peiping can be appeased only at the price of expelling the Republic of China, a Charter member that has lived up to every obligation that it undertook at San Francisco in 1945.
"If ever this appeasement price were paid, the United Nations itself would be destroyed. Even if Peiping did not carry out its threats to take over, the U.N. would have become a worthless shell, devoid of principle and no longer loyal to the Charter and its promises to reward the peaceful and punish the aggressive.
"Settlement of the U.N. China issue will come only with termination of the Chinese civil war—in other words, when the sovereignty of the Republic of China has been restored on the mainland. Or if tyranny is to triumph, then it will come when all of us have been swallowed up by the Communists.
"Meanwhile, the claim that 700 million people lack U.N. representation is false. They are represented, as they have been since the establishment of the United Nations, by the Republic of China. To say that China is not on the map of the world because the usurpers of Peiping are absent from the United Nations reflects a Communist-inclined emotionalism and is not true.
Vote Analysis
"Assertions that the United Nations must have universality also are without substantive support. To the contrary, the Charter itself envisages both members and non-members and specifically closes the U.N. doors to aggressors and warmongers. We wonder, too, why those whose hearts bleed for Red China do not take up cudgels for the membership of West Germany, South Korea, and South Vietnam.
"The Republic of China is doing its best to speak in the name of the Chinese people and of traditional Chinese culture in the halls and all the organizations of the United Nations. We shall continue to do so. We think that the world is already contrasting this representation with Peiping's Red Guards and barbaric 'cultural revolution'."
An analysis of the voting shows how Peiping's stock has fallen since 1965. U.N. membership at the time of the 1965 balloting was 117; for 1966 it was 121. Three of the additional states were new members; the fourth was Indonesia, which had returned after an absence of 18 months. Of the new nations, Lesotho and Guyana voted in favor of the two-thirds majority and against Peiping, then abstained on the Italian proposal. Lesotho has already established diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. Guyana has agreed to accept free Chinese agricultural technical assistance. The third new country, Botswana, supported the two-thirds majority, abstained on the admission of Peiping, and voted for the Italian plan. Indonesia still voted for Peiping but backed the two-thirds requirement, showing at least a slight drift away from Communist influence.
African gains were to be found, too, in the votes of the Central African Republic and Dahomey. In 1965, both opposed the ROC. Since then they were compelled to break relations with Peiping after Chinese Communist attempts to infiltrate and subvert. Dahomey has resumed diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, and the Central African Republic soon may extend its hand in friendship. Both were on the ROC side in 1966.
Other Changes
Morocco recognizes Peiping and has voted for the Chinese Reds in the past. But in 1966 the Moroccans abstained on the admission of Peiping and voted for the Italian proposal. Significantly, the ROC has been increasing trade with the North African country. Additional anti-Peiping votes came from Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. All are receiving technical assistance from the Republic of China. The Congo (Leopoldville) was absent in 1965; this time it was solidly with the ROC.
Chile and Iceland abstained on the resolution to admit Peiping in 1965, but in 1966 they voted with the ROC. Neither encouraging nor discouraging was the position of Chad, Cameroun, and Iran. These three abstained on all three roll calls. Of the 11 votes gained by the ROC, 7 came from Africa. Peiping lost the votes of Singapore, Morocco, Sierra Leone, and the Central African Republic while gaining those of Indonesia, Burundi, and Senegal for a net loss of one. On the Peiping admission vote, the abstention of Canada was disappointing to the Republic of China.
The Canadian two-China scheme was being discussed before formal debate began. There was time for the Republic of China to bring up its diplomatic artillery, and the result was Canadian decision not to bring the proposal to the floor. The Italian resolution for a year's study also helped outmaneuver Canada, but unfortunately placed the Republic of China in a dangerous and embarrassing position. The United States then made things worse by endorsing the Italian proposal. Views differ as to why Washington made such a decision. One holds that U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and the State Department wanted to make a gesture in the direction of the American intellectuals who favor Peiping's admission, and also sought to show a "more reasonable" attitude in order to win Western Europe support for the anti-Communist war in Vietnam. Another view maintains that the United States knew the six-nation resolution would not get anywhere and that to support it might do the American image some good and could not possibly do any harm. A third suggestion is that the United States wanted to tie China representation up in committee, hoping to keep it there not merely for a year but for the indefinite future.
No U.S. Pressure
In any event, once the Italian proposal had emerged, the Republic of China quickly made clear its adamant, unyielding opposition. The United States was made aware that Taipei did not consider its U.N. position an appropriate subject for study. Some sources have said that the Republic of China was prepared to withdraw its U.N. delegation—although not necessarily to resign its seats—if the Italian resolution had passed. Washington still went on record as favoring the committee study, and cast a vote for it, but did not put its prestige on the block in an effort to win passage.
When pro-Communist Syria introduced its two-thirds motion, the fate of the Italian proposition was sealed. Obviously, it could not hope to command a two-thirds majority. Some of those countries which might have voted for it on a majority basis abstained or voted nay. Also involved was Communist realization that no U.N. committee would ever recommend the seating of Peiping in the place of the Republic of China. Thus the Communist bloc stood on strategy of "waiting for another year".
Africa's awakening to the true face of the Chinese Communists was the single most important factor in Peiping's defeat. However, the African votes were not merely negative. They were in favor of free China as well as against slave China. The ROC has just dispatched its 17th agricultural demonstration team to Africa. Technical assistance is offered to the continent in public health, veterinary medicine, handicrafts, fishing, engineering, and other fields. These efforts are neither large nor dramatic by comparison with Peiping's promises to Africa. But there is one big difference. Few of Peiping's pledges have been kept. Most of the money and the goods and the aid projects promised are undelivered and unfulfilled. The Republic of China's aid programs have been carried out to the letter, on time, and with no attempt to interfere in domestic politics or concerns. Africans are not the fools the Chinese Communists think them to be. They have weighed the evidence and made their own judgments on Peiping and the Republic of China.
Record on Taiwan
Another factor was the outstanding success of the Republic of China in making Taiwan a model province. Many African visitors have come to Taiwan and then returned to their own countries to tell the story of a prosperous land, and to contrast this with the hunger, want, and tyranny on the Communist-occupied Chinese mainland. The political differences are even more dramatic and convincing than the economic. Red China is experiencing the oppression of the "cultural revolution", which is destroying the remnants of the intellectual class, and the rampages of the brainwashed Red Guards, who are spreading a reign of barbarism across the mainland in an attempt to save Mao Tse-tung and his Stalinist regime. Africans who see Taiwan know that the Republic of China lives up to its constitutional guarantees of political freedom and civil rights. Free China has no equivalent of the Red Guards; its only cultural movement is one of Chinese renaissance as opposed to Peiping's calculated effort to destroy every important value of the Chinese past.
Foreign Minister Wei Tao-ming summed up the United Nations position of the Republic of China in a statement just before the voting. After thanking those who had upheld the "rightful position" of the ROC, he said:
"The delegations of Cambodia, Albania, and some others have the temerity to charge that Taiwan is under the military occupation of the United States. This is a libel of the most scurrilous kind. The Government of the Republic of China, like all free governments, is free to enter into alliances with any country it chooses. This is an exercise of its sovereign prerogative, and we strongly resent the aspersions that have been cast on the military and other arrangements we have made in defense of the freedom and security of our area of the world. We have no apologies to make to anyone...
"As a Chinese government on Chinese soil, the Government of the Republic of China commands the loyalty and allegiance of all Chinese, no matter where they live. This is the only government capable of articulating the wishes and aspirations of the Chinese people; of speaking on their behalf, in their name as well as in their interest; of bringing to bear their peace-loving traditions as an important influence in the council of nations. Without this Government being represented in the United Nations, the authentic voice of the enslaved millions, their agony and tribulation, their hopes and fears, would not be heard in these halls...
Status Unchanged
"The Government of the Republic of China that participated in the founding of the United Nations is the same Government of the Republic of China I have now the honor to represent. There has been no break in the continuity of leadership or of policies. The legal status of this Government has not changed. The fact that the Communist rebels are presently in occupation of the mainland of China does not affect this legal status. In the eyes of all Chinese, the Government of the Republic of China remains the legal government of China. It represents the true spirit of the Chinese nation. It is the symbol of free Chinese nationalists. It is the rallying point for the fight to regain freedom for the masses of the Chinese people. Its very existence means the eventual overthrow of the Communist regime of Peiping. Its rightful position in the United Nations is thus unchallengeable."
Speaking of the six-nation Italian proposal, Foreign Minister Wei said: "The draft resolution seeks, in the words of the representative of Italy, to tackle the question of the representation of China afresh, 'on a sound and constructive basis.' For purposes of inquiry and study, a committee is to be created with the function of ascertaining the intentions of the Peiping regime. But, one may ask: What is the use of making the inquiry when it is a matter of common knowledge that the Communist regime of Peiping, in words as well as in deeds, has repudiated the principles and purposes of the Charter, has made war and violence the cornerstone of its policy, and has avowed the destruction of the United Nations? Yet, no matter how plainly the Chinese Communists talk and act, some people in the West simply refuse to believe them. The representative of Italy insists that the flood of official pronouncements from Peiping are subject to various interpretations and that they have never been addressed 'officially to United Nations organs in reply to a specific, official question'. He seems to forget that ¢e Chinese Communists are in the grip of an ideology which imbues them with unquestioning confidence in their superiority and their destined progression to triumph and dominion. It does not matter whether or not their pronouncements are officially addressed to the United Nations; the important thing is that they must be taken seriously, to whomever they may be addressed.
Peiping Accusations
"It is significant to note that four days after the introduction of the draft resolution, Peiping accused the representative of Italy of being 'instigated' by the United States to create 'two Chinas' in the United Nations. The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Paul Martin, took the floor to expound his ideas about the draft resolution on 23 November. Two days later the People's Daily, official organ of Peiping, characterized his speech as a 'clumsy self-exposing performance' by one who has a 'guilty conscience'.
"In the light of these reactions, it is hardly edifying for the United Nations to go to the Chinese Communists, hat in hand, in the role of a supplicant, begging to know what they really think of the organization and whether they would deign to comply with its Charter. The United Nations cannot do all this without losing its dignity and self-respect, without seriously shaking public confidence in it.
"On our part, my delegation is firmly opposed to it. The very idea of study is objectionable to us. For all its alleged 'objectivity', the proposal is obviously designed to pave the way for the eventual admission of Peiping ... I may add that the right to determine who should represent the Chinese people in the United Nations belongs to the Chinese people alone and to no one else... It has always been our contention that the Chinese people do not want the Communist regime to represent them in the United Nations. Peiping can only represent a tiny minority known as the Chinese Communist Party. Recent events tell us that even that is doubtful. The wholesale purge of 'anti-Party and anti-Socialist' elements within the Party indicates that a vast number of Communists themselves, many of whom are men in responsible positions, have become disillusioned with their leadership. The masses of the Chinese people's hatred of the regime has reached unparalleled intensity. I have only to point to the fact that millions of people have lost their lives in their resistance to the regime and that millions of others have fled the country to escape the tyranny."
The Foreign Minister pointed out that the international effect of Peiping's admission would be disastrous, and then observed:
"Peiping is the greatest disruptive influence in the world today. It is ironical that at a time when the Soviet Union is about to read it out of the Communist camp as the splitter of the international Communist movement, there are those among us who could be so unmindful of the future of the United Nations as to advocate the admitting of this demolition crew into its midst."
But the number of those "so unmindful" is growing smaller. The votes of November 29 demonstrated an awakening of the U.N. membership to China realities. Defeat of the Italian attempt to seek a compromise came close to putting the United Nations on record as turning the issue over to China and the Chinese, which is precisely where it belongs.