FE files, lot 55 D 480, “United Nations”
Memorandum by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs (Bacon), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Drumright)
- Subject:
- Chinese representation at the opening of the 9th GA
The USSR raised the Chinese representation question at the outset of the General Assembly with a resolution proposing the seating of the Chinese Communists in the General Assembly and other UN organs and bodies. Ambassador Lodge, in a brief speech devoid of any arguments whatever, proposed the U.S. resolution on Chinese representation and proposed also that the U.S. resolution be given priority in the vote. There followed a more extensive debate than has been customary in recent years. Speakers included China, Poland, UK, Australia, Burma, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. The Indian representative (Menon) reserved his comments for two interventions after the voting had actually started. The vote on giving the U.S. resolution priority over the Soviet resolution was 45–7 (Soviet Block, Sweden and Burma)–5. The vote on the U.S. resolution on Chinese representation was 43–11 (Soviet Block, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Burma and India)–6 (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt and Indonesia).
Comment. During the debate the UK made a relatively weak speech arguing chiefly that as Chinese representation was a “violently controversial issue” the UK believed it unwise to consider the issue at present. By contrast, Australia made a strong speech noting that there was a code of conduct in the UN which the Chinese Communists had violated. The Communist speeches were of the usual character except that reference was made to “peaceful China” frequently and especially to “peaceful Chinese” contributions to the Indochina armistice and the Geneva Conference and its cooperative relations with its neighbors, especially India and Burma. Burma as usual spoke briefly but strongly in favor of seating the Chinese Communists while China made an effective statement of its claims to speak for China. In the course of his speech the Chinese representative said that Communist China had been repudiated by most of the thirteen million overseas Chinese despite the fact that most of them resided in territories under governments which “for reasons of expediency” had recognized the Chinese Communists.
Vishinsky sought to bait Lodge by referring to the U.S. resolution as “wishy-washy”, taunting that the U.S. was afraid to vote on the straight-forward Soviet resolution, pointing out that even the U.S. press agreed that the U.S. position on Chinese representation was [Page 797] weaker than last year. (With reference to Hamilton in the New York Times.) Lodge did not reply.
The Indian representative, on a point of order after the voting had already started, charged that the whole proceedings were illegal because there was no Chinese representation item on the Agenda. When Madam Pandit asked if the Indian intervention constituted a challenge to her ruling that the voting might proceed, Menon retreated, and Madam Pandit proceeded with the voting.
In the voting Indonesia’s abstention is notable inasmuch as last year it voted against the U.S. resolution. Denmark this year joined Sweden and Norway in opposition to the U.S. resolution, but Iceland, alone of the Scandinavian states, voted with us.