In response to your memorandum of August 25, we have assembled, jointly with
UNA [
IO] and FE, the documentation referred to in the draft “Communist China in
the U.N.” and have appended this
documentation to a redraft of the original draft you sent to us in the hope
that the redraft will be useful to the Secretary.1 There is also attached a list of “Four Additional
Charges”.
The redraft, in addition to suggested elaborations of the argument at various
points, contains some small suggested changes. These will be readily
apparent by reference to the copy of the original draft submitted to L.
Documentation will be supplied separately on the four additional charges set
out on the attached list.
[Attachment]
Communist China in the United Nations2
i.
Arguments Against Seating
1. It is an aggressor against the United Nations in Korea, so found by
resolution 498 (V) of February 1, 1951 which still stands.
In resolution 396 (V) of December 14, 1950 (copy attached—Tab A) the
General Assembly recommended that “whenever more than one authority
claims to be the government entitled to represent a Member state in the
United Nations and this question becomes the subject of controversy in
the United Nations, the question should be considered in the light of
the Purposes and Principles of the Charter and the circumstances of each
case”. The Chinese Communist regime has consistently acted in callous
contempt of the Purposes and Principles of the Charter.
In resolutions of June 25 and 27, 1950 (copies attached—Tabs B and C) the
Security Council called for the immediate cessation of hostilities in
Korea; called upon the North Korean authorities to withdraw their forces
to the thirty-eighth parallel; called upon all Members to refrain from
giving assistance to the North Korean authorities; recommended that
Members furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be
necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace
and security in the area.
The Chinese Communist authorities, in contempt of the United Nations,
despatched their troops to fight against the forces of the United
Nations. On February 1, 1951 the General Assembly found that the Chinese
Communist regime “by giving direct aid and assistance to those who were
already committing aggression in Korea and by engaging in hostilities
against United Nations forces there, has itself engaged in aggression”
(copy of resolution 498 (V) of February 1, 1951 attached—Tab D).
The same resolution goes on to call upon the Chinese Communist regime to
“cause its forces and nationals in Korea to cease hostilities against
the United Nations forces and to withdraw from Korea”. Although the
Armistice Agreement signed at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953 brought about a
complete cessation of hostilities pending negotiation of a final
peaceful settlement, no such settlement has been reached and forces and
nationals of the Chinese Communist regime have not withdrawn from Korea.
By its continued direct aid and assistance to these forces and nationals
and to others who were already committing aggression in Korea, the
so-called Central People’s Government must
[Page 769]
be considered still to be engaged in aggression in
Korea within the meaning of General Assembly resolution 498 (V).
2. At the Geneva Conference the Chinese Communist regime treated the
United Nations with the utmost contempt and refused to admit the
validity of any of its actions with reference to Korea.
[The text of the statement by Chou En-Lai on May 3,
1954 at the sixth plenary session of the Geneva Conference is attached
(Tab E).]3
The following, among others, are illustrations of the official Chinese
Communist attitude toward the United Nations and its action regarding
Korea:
“… The Delegates of the United States and certain other countries
… endeavor to use, as before, the illegal resolutions of the
United Nations for insisting on interfering in the internal
affairs of Korea and in preventing the Korean people from
solving their own problems themselves”. (p. 127)
“… Those member nations of the United Nations which followed the
lead of the United States … went so far as to discredit the just
action of the Chinese People’s Volunteers in resisting
aggression and aiding Korea, and slandered the People’s Republic
of China as an aggressor”. (p. 128)
3. It continues to defy the UN Resolution
of 1950 establishing a United Nations Commission for Korea, although
that Resolution stands and the Commission is today in South Korea.
General Assembly resolution 376 (V) of October 7, 1950, among other
things, established the United Nations Commission for the Unification
and Rehabilitation of Korea (UNCURK).
The Commission convened at Tokyo on November 20, 1950, and is still in
operation. The text of this resolution is attached, together with an
account of the establishment of UNCURK from the President’s Report for 1950 (Tab F).
4. It actively supported the Viet Minh aggression of Ho
Chi-Minh against Laos and Cambodia. While these two
countries refrained from bringing their case to the United Nations, the
facts are demonstrable. (For documentation on Chinese Communist support
of the Viet Minh see Tab K.) Thailand was threatened and showed its
alarm by appealing to the Security Council for a Peace Observation
Commission, their appeal being vetoed by the Soviet Union (Thai
resolution attached—Tab G).
5. The conduct of the Chinese Communist regime is exactly the kind of
conduct which, under Article 5 and 6 of the Charter, should subject a
member to suspension of membership rights or even expulsion from the
Organization. Article 5 authorizes suspension of a Member whose conduct
is such as to warrant the application of preventive or enforcement
action against it, and Article 6 authorizes the expulsion of a
[Page 770]
member which has persistently
violated the Principles of the Charter. The Communist regime is one
against which the Member States of the United Nations were authorized to
take, and against which they did in fact take, preventive and
enforcement action, both military and economic. It seems senseless to
seat in the United Nations a regime whose conduct is unmistakably the
kind of conduct which calls for suspension or expulsion.
6. The China case represents a precedent of the utmost importance. It is
the first time that conflicting claims have been made for the seat of a
country and the way this is handled can have important future
consequences in other cases.
The National Government is the Government which signed the United Nations
Declaration of January 1, 1942, which qualified China under subsequent
agreements for original membership in the United Nations Organization.
It is in control of a part of what both sides claim to be “China”. It is
recognized by a large majority of members of the United Nations—only 15
Members (excluding Byelorussia and the Ukraine) recognize the Communist
regime—and the Soviet Union, by its note of August 14, 1945, agreed in
substance to recognize it for thirty years (the life of the Sino-Soviet
Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of August 14, 1945, of which the note
was agreed to form a part). (Text of Sino-Soviet Treaty of 1945
attached—Tab G!) It may be noted that, by resolution 505 (VI) of
February 1, 1952 (text attached—Tab H) the General Assembly determined
“that the USSR, in its relations with
China since the surrender of Japan, has failed to carry out the Treaty
of Friendship and Alliance between China and the USSR of 14 August 1945”. Soviet
recognition of the Communist regime is consistent with its other
violations of the Sino-Soviet Treaty.
It is true that the Communist regime exercise de
facto control over the greater part of China and the greater
number of Chinese. However, de facto control is
not a conclusive test for purposes of recognition, and even less so for
purposes of representation under the Charter. Even the Chinese Communist
regime fails to apply the test to recognition, since it recognizes the
Communist regime of East Germany and the Communist regime of North Korea
as the Governments of Germany and Korea, respectively, and has refused
to recognize the Governments headed by Chancellor
Adenauer and President
Rhee, although these Governments freely rule
the greater part of Germany and the Germans, and of Korea and the
Koreans. [For facts on Communist recognition of East Germany and North
Korea see Tab L.]
The Chinese Communist regime does not conform to accepted standards of
international law and practice. It is an aggressor against the United
Nations. Its general conduct in other instances has shown a similar
disregard of legality and morality. For example:
[Page 771]
- (a)
- After the killing and wounding of American citizens in a
British civilian plane, it has refused even to receive U.S.
notes calling for indemnification and for punishment of
offenders, the guilt of which was not denied. (Documentation
available in L and FE. Text of U.S. note of August 4,
1954 attached—Tab I)
- (b)
- It holds in prison 30 American citizens without trial, without
a statement of charges, and often under intolerable physical
conditions. (See attached document—Tab J—entitled “Mistreatment
of Foreign Nationals and Interests in Communist China”.
7. The Charter does not provide for “universality” but for the membership
of peace-loving states which both accept the obligations contained in
the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able
and willing to carry out these obligations.
While it is true that the Charter talks in terms of “states” and not
“governments”, the reality is that states only act through governments
and states cannot carry out their obligations except through
governments. Therefore, the character of a government is necessarily
decisive. The important point is, however, that Article 4 conclusively
does away with argument that the Chinese Communist regime should be
admitted on the ground that the Charter contemplates “universality”.
The point has even greater weight when dealing with a government which
would take its seat on the Security Council. The Charter makes clear
(Article 23) that membership on the Security Council should reflect “the
contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of
international peace and security”. The Security Council has (Article 24)
“primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security”. In view of these provisions, it is the height of folly to
seat a regime condemned of violating by armed force international peace
and security.
8. Those who argue for the admission of Communist China in the interest
of “universality” not only ignore the Charter language which rejects
this principle but they also ignore the fact that the Soviet Union, by
exercising the veto power, has prevented the admission of some fourteen
nations, against whose record there is no blemish whatsoever, unless it
be that their governments are non-Communist: Jordan, Ireland, Portugal,
Italy, Austria, Finland, Nepal, Ceylon, Libya, Republic of Korea, Japan,
Viet-Nam, Laos and Cambodia. It is perfectly clear that the USSR would also veto Germany and Spain if
they applied. The states rejected through the Soviet veto thus include
German, Italy and Japan, and represent much human population and power
in the world. Thus, the argument which we so often hear, that the UN is being “bypassed” because of the
absence of Communist China, is too one-sided to be convincing. It
disregards the fact that the absence of these many nations which play a
major part in international affairs has for years, while the Soviet
Union was vetoing their
[Page 772]
admission, made it necessary for the United Nations to be “bypassed” in
many essential respects.
Those who want “universality” should not concentrate upon the absence of
one single government of dubious status and reputation, but rather upon
the absence of the many. Unless the Soviet Union alters its position
with respect to vetoing the admission of those obviously qualified for
membership, the whole matter should perhaps be reserved for
consideration at the prospective Charter Review Conference.
Four Additional Charges
The CPG has:
- 1.
- failed to accept China’s recognized treaty obligations;
- 2.
- supported the Communist side in Korea in the commission of
atrocities and, more recently, in violating the Armistice
Agreement by frustrating the work of the NNSC;
- 3.
- maliciously collaborated in developing and publicizing false
evidence in support of spurious germ warfare charges;
- 4.
- systematically suppressed human rights at home.
