Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Bacon), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Johnson)
- Madame Pandit and Chinese Communist Representation in the UN.
According to Beirut’s 1258, January 2,1 there is a report that Madame Pandit, during her tour of the Middle East, is urging support for Chinese Communist representation in the UN and is reportedly arguing that the Arab-Asian bloc would be able to exercise a veto power through the Chinese Communists.
- Madame Pandit’s support for seating the Chinese Communists would be consistent with India’s habitual position on this question in the UN and with Nehru’s recent plea before the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches for greater Western recognition of the Chinese Communists. Support at this time for Chinese Communist representation in the UN might be regarded by Nehru as a means of (a) improving India’s standing with Communist China through support of a policy known to be repugnant to this country and (b) covering India’s embarrassment at its rebuff on the Korean proposal by suggesting that the basic difficulty was in fact Western rejection of the Chinese Communists.
- Reference to the advantages of a Chinese Communist veto is somewhat obscure. On most questions of primary interest to the Arabs—colonialism, racial problems and economic development of underdeveloped countries—Arab positions coincide with Soviet positions so that a veto is already at hand. The one important exception is the Palestine question on which the Soviet position has wavered. At the recent GA, however, the USSR voted with the Arabs on the Palestine question—a move which Beirut has reported was a big surprise to the Arabs.
- It has often been assumed that India would seek a Charter amendment in 19552 to enable it to become a permanent member of the Security Council, possibly in place of China. India has also clearly sought to assume a position of leadership among the Arab-Asians. For India to be pushing Chinese Communist representation in the UN on the argument that the Chinese Communists would protect Arab interests would seem accordingly to be somewhat inconsistent with India’s previous positions. It will be interesting to see whether Madame Pandit does in fact advance this argument.
UNP is drafting a telegram to Beirut asking to be kept informed of developments and pointing out the fallacy in the argument that a Chinese Communist veto would be used in Arab interests.3