310.2/7–1654: Instruction
The Secretary of State to the Mission at the United Nations1
CA–142. Re Chinese representation (urtel 33).
- 1.
- Re UKUN giving definite answer on formula for resumed session, USUN will wish to bear in mind that last January UK Embassy official informed Department that this formula “entirely agreeable” to Foreign Office. In light this and recent Churchill statement that UK would not press for change in Chinese representation at this moment UKUN should have no objection formula.
- 2.
- We assume it will be necessary for Credentials Committee meet since some new representatives certain to be accredited, e.g., Guatemala.
- 3.
- We are puzzled by UK query whether
Credentials Committee would again be seized with proposals made by India
at first part eighth session and put on ice. We do not recall India made
any formal proposals on this subject. Major developments in GA last fall were as follows:
- (a)
- At opening plenary: (1) on point of order USSR submitted proposal under which GA would “consider it necessary” that representatives appointed by Chinese Communist regime should take “lawful” seat of China in General Assembly and other organs of UN; (2) US moved that GA postpone for duration eighth session in current year consideration of all proposals to exclude representatives of Government of Republic of China and to seat Chinese Communists; (3) US moved under rule 91 that US proposal be put vote first and this procedural motion adopted by GA; (4) US postponement proposal then adopted; and (5) GA adopted Thai motion under rule 91 that Soviet proposal should not be voted upon.
- (b)
- In his general debate speech on September 28 Menon said in substance above procedure incorrect; matter should have been considered as credentials problem and in first instance by Credentials Committee; he would challenge Chinese credentials when report Credentials Committee considered.
- (c)
- This report considered following day. As in Credentials Committee USSR moved Chinese credentials be declared invalid; President ruled this motion out of order in absence formal motion under rule 82 to reconsider September 15 decision; President’s ruling not challenged. Menon reiterated view September 15 procedure incorrect and stated India would vote for Credentials Report except part on China since India did not accept that Chinese credentials had been [Page 744] issued by Head of State or Minister for Foreign Affairs of China as required by rule 27. First report Credentials Committee (covering Chinese and most other delegations) then put to vote as whole and approved.
- 3. [4]
- Following occur to us as principal ways in which Chinese
representation issue might be raised at resumed session:
- (a)
- Soviet motion in Credentials Committee that Chinese credentials be declared invalid. In this event we would immediately state that this raises substance Chinese representation issue and move that Committee recommend to GA that it postpone for duration second part of eighth regular session consideration of all proposals to exclude representatives of the Government of Republic of China and seat Chinese Communists. Unless Chair (Munro) prepared suggest or rule that our postponement motion be put vote first we would formally so move under rule 91. After adoption our motion we would move under same rule that Soviet proposal not be voted upon (unless Chair willing rule this sense). Same routine would be followed in plenary when Credentials Committee report considered. It would of course not be necessary in plenary secure priority in vote for postponement proposal since Committee resolution would automatically have priority.
- If question status Chinese credentials raised we would take position that it is unnecessary for credentials be approved; credentials Chinese representatives attending resumed session were approved at first part eighth session.
- (b)
- Alternatively Chinese representation issue may be raised on point of order, possibly at opening plenary meeting. Soviets might submit proposal along lines their proposal of last September. Menon might challenge seating of Chinese and request under rule 29 his challenge be referred Credentials Committee. President might put latter procedural question to GA or might rule that such proposals must in first instance be considered by Credentials Committee.
If this matter put to GA our present thinking is we should vote against referral to Credentials Committee on ground issue raised by Soviet [or Indian]1 proposal constitutes important political question of first magnitude and not simple credentials question; this already recognized by GA in resolution 396 (V) in which GA stated inter alia that precisely this type of issue “should be considered in the light of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter”; such questions should be considered in plenary or in First Committee. We think best course at resumed session is direct plenary consideration.
If President rules matter should be referred Credentials Committee we could formally challenge ruling on above grounds. Alternatively, we could acquiesce in referral Credentials Committee but in order safeguard our position for future state for record our views along above lines, making clear we reserve right on some future occasion to propose this question be considered in First Committee or directly in plenary.
[Page 745]If question is not referred Credentials Committee and is dealt with directly in plenary, we would submit our postponement proposal and would take steps ensure it put vote first and upon its adoption that Soviet proposal not be voted upon, if necessary formally so moving under rule 91 on both points or arranging for another delegation to do so.