"The Chinese National Olympic Committee having its seat in Taipei (Taiwan) will be notified by the International Olympic Committee Chancellor that it cannot continue to be recognized under that name since it does not control sport in the country of China, and its name will be removed from the official list.
"If an application for recognition under a different name is made, it will be considered by the International Olympic Committee."
This IOC resolution adopted on May 28, 1959 at Munich, the place made famous by the sellout of Czechoslovakia, was entirely unexpected. Only five days ago, the very same body refused to take up the question of re-admission of Peiping, leaving the impression in every mind that the whole issue will be postponed until next February.
But the international Communists won the first round through scheming. As early as in October last year, only months after Peiping withdrew from the IOC and eight world sports federations recognized the Republic of China, an important meeting was held in Peiping. At that conference, it was decided all Communists in the world should do their best to dislodge free China from all sports bodies and replace it by the Peiping regime. Russia was assigned the work in the IOC, the track and field federation and the basketball federations Hungary, a country good in football (soccer), was to lead the attack in the international football association and so on and so forth. The Peiping meeting obligated all Communist sports bodies to vote as one man. It was also decided that if they fail, they must walk out.
The first test was in January this year at Santiago, Chile. Before the third world basketball tournament got started, Russia demanded the international basketball federation to oust the Republic of China from its membership. Bulgaria supported Russia. But they were roundly defeated. As a result, both Russian and Bulgarian teams refused to play the Chinese team, throwing the tournament into an indignant confusion.
Four months later, the Russians came back to Rome to renew the scheming against free China. Coupling the China issue with racial segregation in South African sports, Soviet delegates asked for ouster of free China from the IOC on ground that Peiping was in control of the Chinese sports. The Russian move was stopped by the chair which ruled that the joint meeting between the IOC, the Italian Organizing Committee, international sports federations and national Olympic committees was held to study preparations for the 1960 Rome Olympiad, not for other purposes.
These two Russian attempts were just the overture. The main effort was made when the IOC met in full session at Munich on May 23. The three Russian IOC members submitted a 57-page memorandum aimed at restoring Chinese Communist membership and expulsion of the free Chinese. About the former, the Russians said the Executive Board's acceptance of Peiping's withdrawal from the IOC was not legitimate since it was the committee not the board having such powers. The Russians therefore cleverly asked the full committee to disown the Executive Board's decision, thereby automatically restoring the Chinese Communist membership. The latter part of the Soviet proposal said the Chinese National Olympic Committee in Taipei should be expelled.
Faced with this Soviet onslaught, the Executive Board had prepared a compromise which would allow the re-admission of Peiping and the retention of free China's membership. The board suggested that one committee be called Taiwan and the other, China. However, even Otto Mayer, IOC chancellor, dismally admitted that the compromise plan would be accepted by neither party.
The Soviet motion and the board suggestion came to a vote on May 24. The IOC accepted neither one. On the other hand, it asked the Executive Board to continue its study into the China problem and report its decision to the full committee meeting next February at San Francisco.
For all practical purposes, the matter seemed to have died then and there—IOC had shelved the issue.
Five days later, the Soviets came up with the same problem. They announced if the problem was not settled, all Communist countries would walk out of the IOC and refuse to take part in Olympic Games, winter or summer. They spoke these words with seeming finality.
Members of the IOC became panicky. They did not want to re-admit Peiping right away since their face must be saved. Peiping had withdrawn with angry blasts at the IOC. Nevertheless, they decided to sacrifice free China, hoping the Chinese Committee would either withdraw or accept the name of Taiwan. Hence, the infamous May 28 resolution.
Some right-thinking IOC members spoke against the resolution and they voted against it too. Among them were Jorge Vargas of the Philippines and Douglas F. Roby and John J. Garland of the United States but their courageous stand was made in vain. The resolution was carried by a majority vote.
Even to this day, nobody knew exactly what was the vote. Avery Brundage, IOC president and an American, said it was "practically unanimous." Otto Mayer said only seven dissenting votes were cast. Roby said he remembered it was 29-22. And yet some others said there had been no vote at all.
When the decision was announced, all press agencies reported that the IOC had "expulsed," "expelled" or "ousted" free China. But Mayer said, "Our Munich decision has been fantastically distorted, misunderstood and mis-represented." He indicated that if the Chinese Committee would use the name "Taiwan", re-admission would be granted.
Brundage also explained on June 3 at Lausanne, "It is quite apparent that much misinformation has been printed about the action of the IOC on the so-called Chinese problem at its recent meeting in Munich. It has been written that the Chinese National Olympic Committee (headquarters Taipei) was 'ousted' or 'expelled' from the Olympic Movement. This is not the case since this organization has been a member in good standing for many years and there was no reason for withdrawing recognition except for its name···
"There was no 'pressure' from anyone—the action was practically unanimous and it was a purely common sense decision, not political in any sense of the word. We cannot recognize a Chinese Committee in Taiwan any more than we could recognize an Italian Committee in Sicily or a Canadian Committee in Newfoundland."
From the Mayer and Brundage statements, it was clear that the IOC has excluded free China but left the door ajar for re-admission if the Chinese agreed to use another name, preferably Taiwan:
No sooner had the IOC made this notorious decision than the free world rose up in arms against it. Sentiments were especially strong in free China and the United States. In the Philippines too, Vargas and the Philippine national sports body denounced the action in unequivocal terms.
Teng Chuan-kai, President of the Chinese Committee, was .in Munich as an observer at that time. He asked for a meeting with Brundage to seek explanations. Then two days later, he lodged a strong protest with the IOC.
In Taipei, Dr. L. K. Kiang, Secretary General of the Chinese Committee, said the IOC decision was purely political. He added the Communists had won a victory. His sentiments were echoed by all sports leaders and university professors.
The Chinese Government, through its spokesman Dr. Kiang Yi-seng, also used the strongest terms against the IOC action. Dr. Kiang said the action "was undoubtedly jammed through under the group pressure of Soviet Russia and her satellites ... (The action) violates the basic concept of justice and fair play inherent in the peaceful, non-political contests of international sports.
"This is the way of appeasement which obviously compromises with the non-political character of the IOC ... It is Soviet Russia and her satellite countries that should be expelled from the IOC, and it would be a mockery of sportsmanship to permit the Chinese Communists to join the IOC."
The Legislative Yuan was also seething with anger. It unanimously adopted a motion asking for a strong protest against the IOC decision, appealing for support from free nations and calling for efforts to bar the Communists from the Olympic Movement.
All the press reacted sharply to the exclusion. Said the China News: "It represents the greatest moral victory Peiping has ever won in the international field."
The United States also was indignant. Lincoln White, State Department spokesman, at first could not believe his ears. "Unbelievable," he said. A few days later, he called the decision "a clear act of political discrimination" against free China. The U.S. Government also called on worldwide sports groups to insist that Chinese athletes be allowed to enter Olympic Games.
This U.S. stand was later confirmed by President Eisenhower who spoke of the IOC decision in very disparaging terms.
Congress reaction was of one intense disgust. Congress moved with dispatch and ruled that the US$400,000 earmarked as monetary support for the Winter Games of 1960 at Squaw Valley would be withheld if free China could not take part. Francis Dorn, representative from New York, called for American withdrawal from the Olympics if China continues to be excluded.
The American Olympic Association, Amateur Athletic Union and other sports organs all spoke up against the IOC decision.
And Robert L. King, executive director of the Squaw Valley Organizing Committee, said the organizers stood pat on their invitation to free China as well as refusal to let the Communists in. The State Department later said visas would be issued to individual mainland Chinese athletes who must not claim to represent China.
The New York Times had little reservation in denouncing the IOC. It said, "It has yielded to the rawest sort of political blackmail. The action is not only .... 'totally inconsistent with its non-political tradition.' It is cowardly, evasive and shameful. If there is a spark of courage left in our Olympic representatives, they will make it clear that this bit of international chicanery was abhorrent, and not maintain their timorous silence."
The New York Herald Tribune deplored that the "Olympic code has been betrayed." And cried the New York World Telegram: "To emphasize our feeling about it—if the IOC continues its hard-nosed line—there is one conclusive thing we could do: Withdraw from the 1960 games. Improbable and regrettable as that may be, growing American indignation may well warrant such a warning to the IOC. And we would not be alone in taking that step."
Only the Washington Post, always critical of free China, and the Christian Science Monitor, maintained a neutral position.
Incensed individual Americans wrote many protesting letters to the editors. Marvin Liebman, secretary of the Committee of One Million, called the IOC action a "milestone of hypocrisy" and demanded the American people to protest to Brundage, the Olympic Association and their Congressmen. Alfred Kohlberg said it was a "shocking expulsion" and Miss Rita va Wees of the Bronx denounced the "shameful ousting." Commodore Frederick G. Reinicke, former Annapolis athletics manager, said the IOC had played into Communist hands. Ralph R. Lounsbury of Montclair, N. J. and G. G. Zabriskie of New York agreed with him
The first shock over, the Chinese Committee held meeting after meeting to decide what to do. Should free China withdraw outright from the Olympic Movement? That seemed to be the easiest way out. But then the field will be left wide open for the Chinese Communists who practice "state amateurism." It will then not only be a moral victory but victory of some substantial sort for Peiping. Sports leaders were warned repeatedly that if IOC membership is lost, the Communists may try the same method in other non-governmental international bodies and finally in the United Nations. The prospects are not happy ones.
Should free China bow to the IOC and remain on the member list as Taiwan? This alternative is even worse. Then, the sportsmen will cease to be Chinese citizens and an ugly precedent will be created to make the Republic of China no longer a country but a non-sovereign territory.
Finally, the Chinese Committee decided to meet the IOC halfway. It would re-apply for membership under another name as was called for by the IOC. This would be "Republic of China."
On June 8, Dr. L. K. Kiang sent the following cable to Otto Mayer re-applying in the name of Republic of China Olympic Committee:
"The Chinese National Olympic Committee strongly and indignantly protests against the action taken by the IOC in Munich on May 28, 1959 regarding the official name of this Committee. Since this Committee has been recognized by the IOC for a great many years and has always faithfully and actively supported all activities of the Olympic Movement, the said action of the IOC is, therefore, inequitable and unwarranted, to say the least ...
"On the basis of the fact that this country, according to its Constitution, bears the ofl1cial name of the 'Republic of China', and is recognized under this name by a great majority of the sovereign states of the world, by the United Nations in its Charter, and by all other intergovernmental and non-governmental international organizations whereof she is a member, it is hereby decided that, effectively immediately, the Chinese National Olympic Committee shall be addressed officially as the 'Republic of China Olympic Committee ... " Kiang asked Mayer to take prompt action to readmit free China.
Another cable went out of Taipei almost at the same time. It asked Cheng Pao-nan to represent the Committee and start talks with Brundage and Mayer in the quest of a settlement.
Even before the cable was en route, Brundage and Mayer indicated that the new name was not acceptable. They suggested the name should be either "Taiwan" or "Formosa" but any reference to China was definitely out. .
The Chinese Committee also sent letters to all national Olympic committees and members of the IOC asking for support. The letters pointed out "why we cannot use the name 'Taiwan' but have to insist on the use of the name 'Republic of China'."
"The fact is: all our officials and athletes are citizens of the Republic of China," Teng Chuan-kai said in the letters. "We come from different provinces of China. We may be Fukienese, Cantonese or Taiwanese, but over and above we are all Chinese. Only the Republic of China, not Taiwan, has national colors, the national anthem and the national flag. Taiwan does not qualify as a country. It is merely a province of the Republic or China.:. It therefore does not stand to reason for people to insist that we should forsake our nationality, of which we are as proud as you are of your own nationality, and assume the role of being provincials."
Teng said although his committee did not claim control of sports in areas outside of its influence, it did exercise control over an area much bigger than Taiwan.
There is also a large number of overseas Chinese willing to represent free China in the Olympic Movement. They only want to be identified as Chinese, Teng warned:
"If we ignore the facts and call our Committee the Taiwan or Formosa committee, millions of young' Chinese men and women will be denied the opportunity of joining in the Olympic Movement and we shall be thus denied our birthright as Chinese. We should be given a fair deal which, in this instance, means that our Committee should be rightfully called the Republic of China Olympic Committee."
In reply to Brundage and Mayer who suggested the use of "Taiwan" or "Formosa", Teng dispatched a cable on June 14 saying: "It must be made clear that the suggestions of dropping the internationally accepted name of our country is definitely infeasible.
Cheng Pao-nan met Brundage and Mayer twice. But apparently no solution was reached. The last word from Mayer was on June 17. He merely said, "We shall continue our efforts to find a solution giving satisfaction to your Committee as well as to us."
This is how the situation stands today. There is hope for a settlement. But there is also every chance that no mutually acceptable solution would be worked out.
China's membership in the Olympic Movement is long and illustrious. Although somewhat backward in physical achievements, China has always observed the Olympic code and followed closely the rules of the IOC. Amateurism is the standing order and. the politically conscious Chinese have managed to keep off politics in dealings with the IOC.
For more than a generation, the Chinese Committee has been on the membership list. The first Chinese participation in the Olympics was in 1932 for the Los Angeles Games. Again China took part in the 1936 Berlin Games. When the Olympiad was revived after the war, a Chinese delegation was present in the 1948 London Games.
After 1948, great changes took place on the mainland. The Chinese Committee moved its seat to Taiwan in 1949 and the Peiping regime created its own Olympic committee. Therefore in the 1952 Helsinki Games, both the Committee here and Peiping wanted to take part. The Communist competitors went to Finland but did not actually take part in the games while the sportsmen of free China did not make the trip.
In 1954, the IOC meeting in Athens recognized the Peiping committee while retaining free China's membership. The decision was criticized by far-sighted sportsmen and observers the world over because it invited future troubles. And the troubles did come.
A sizeable free China delegation went to the 1956 Games at Melbourne. The Communists who had announced willingness to take part withdrew at the last moment on political grounds.
Then last year, the Communists announced withdrawal from the IOC and eight other international sports federations. The Communists indicated they would not reapply for membership unless these bodies expel free China first.
In the current issue, the Communists have been maintaining a strange silence. Peiping so far has not even reported the IOC decision.
And there is no Chinese member in the IOC. The first Chinese IOC membership is Dr. C. T. Wang, a veteran diplomat and great sports leader. The former president of the Chinese Committee served for more than 20 years in the IOC and finally resigned in 1957 for health reasons. He was made an honorary member.
Dr. Wang stood up this time and blamed the 10C for the exclusion of free China. In a cable to Brundage, he said he was "surprised" by the IOC action and "pained" by Brundage's subsequent statements. Dr. Wang added he did not consider it "fair to compel my compatriots in Taiwan to call themselves other than Chinese." He suggested an IOC postal vote to see if the new name is acceptable. "To do otherwise will invite justifiable criticisms and even disaster," he warned. "If it should be so rejected merely because of nomenclature, then how many national committees should have been excluded long ago for persisting in practicing so-called 'state amateurism', a clear violation of our Charter and Rules!"
During the war years, the IOC elected Dr. H. H. Kung as the second Chinese member but Dr. Kung never attended a meeting and thus was considered to "have automatically resigned" from the IOC.
The third Chinese IOC member is Tung Shou-yi, a 1945 addition. A man of little stature, Tung surrendered to the Communists in 1949 and has been made a willing tool of Peiping in international sports. He was, however, lightly regarded by other IOC members.
Tung quit the IOC last year when the Communists withdrew from international sports. Brundage promptly accepted his resignation and Tung thus lost his value in the eyes of the Chinese Communists.