65. Memorandum of Conversation1
SUBJECT
- Canadian Views on Chinese Representation at the UN
PARTICIPANTS
- Ambassador Charles S.A. Ritchie of Canada
- Mr. Gary R. Harman, First Secretary, Embassy of Canada
- The Secretary
- Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary, IO
- William B. Cobb, Jr., EUR/BNA
Ambassador Ritchie began by saying that he had talked with the Canadian Foreign Minister and had been asked by him to convey to the Secretary the Foreign Minister’s present thinking on the problem of Chinese representation at the UN. The Canadians, on the basis of extensive checking, are of the opinion that on an Albanian-type resolution the General Assembly would vote 53 in favor, 45 against, with 15 abstentions. This possibility argues for taking a long look at the China representation question between now and the beginning of the General Assembly session rather than between the 19th and 20th sessions of the General Assembly, as had been suggested earlier. The Canadians are aware of the importance of America’s relations with the free countries of Asia and, of course, recognize domestic sentiment in the United States. They are also aware of domestic considerations in Canada which are more favorable toward the ChiComs. Because of these factors, the Canadians feel that they would not oppose an Albanian-type resolution as they had in the past. With respect to the “important question,” Canada would vote affirmatively despite uncertainties that the resolution would carry. The Canadians under the circumstances are considering the possibility of introducing a declaratory resolution which would support a two-China solution at the UN.
The Secretary said that he would like to speak with the President about the Canadian views and accordingly would withhold full comment until after he could do so. Nevertheless, he thought it should be pointed out that the problem is not so much with the domestic reaction in the United States or the UN reaction as it is with Peiping. If the ChiComs continue on their present aggressive course, there will be war in the Pacific. Unless they realize there is opposition to their present course, [Page 125] they will conclude that they are doing fine. So far as we know not one of the free world countries represented in Peiping has expressed to the ChiComs criticism of their actions during the past two years. Paradoxically, it is now argued by some that the Chinese explosion of a nuclear device is a reason for admitting them to the United Nations, yet the same voices would loudly condemn the United States and seek to throw us out of the UN had we done so.
Ambassador Ritchie said that the problem in part was based on the mathematics of the vote. The Secretary noted that in this connection Article 19 comes into play since a number of votes counted one way or another by the Canadians “have to be paid for.” Ambassador Ritchie gave the Secretary the Canadian analysis of the country-by-country vote. The Secretary said that we would check the Canadian figures against our own for there may be different views on certain ex-French-African countries and others. Our assessments can be compared on November 17 when Assistant Secretary Cleveland goes to Ottawa for discussions there. The Secretary again emphasized that the reaction in Peiping was in our view of central importance. Looking ahead we could see the possibility that the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries could work out their problems without war. We are not so sure about Peiping.
Assistant Secretary Cleveland asked if the views expressed by Ambassador Ritchie reflected the joint Belgian-Italian-Canadian assessment. The Ambassador said that they did not and that, in point of fact, the Canadian view reflected the Minister’s present thoughts on the subject rather than a firm policy decision of the Government of Canada.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, UN 6 CHICOM. Confidential. Drafted by Cobb and approved in S on January 5, 1965. The meeting was held in the Secretary’s office.↩