308. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State 1
New York, November 13, 1970, 0111Z.
3133. Subj: Chirep—First Session.
- Chirep debate opened in GA plenary morning Nov 12 with Algeria introducing res to “restore lawful rights of PRC” and expel “Chiang Kai-shek clique” from UN. Speech was almost carbon copy of last year, suggesting no flexibility on part of Peking or her supporters. Philippines followed introducing Important Question res. Again speech contained nothing new and was pitched to opposition Peking entry on grounds PRC not peace-loving state as required by Charter. GRC FonMin Wei then delivered lengthy speech built largely on anti-Sov quotes from PRC media (to prove they not peace-loving) and anti-PRC quotes from Sov media (ditto). Wei concluded by stating GRC not opposed to universality but believes it not relevant to Chirep question since GRC represents all of Chinese people, both on Taiwan and on mainland. Pakistan spoke for Albanian res and Costa Rica opposed, both on familiar grounds. Amb Phillips delivered US speech fol which session closed.2
- PM session Nov 12 adjourned after other business since no speakers inscribed on Chirep. Canada, Albania, Somalia inscribed for AM Nov 13.PM session will be given over to conclusion of debate and vote on Credentials Comite report, with Chirep resuming Nov 16. Now appears vote will take place Nov 19.
- Reaction to US speech ran gamut from “nothing new” (Baroody, Saudi Arabia) to “clearly signals change in US policy” (Hearn, Canada). Yazid, who spoke for Algeria to open debate, approached MISOFF and called it “most interesting speech—our own was same as last year but you broke new ground.” Petri (Sweden) termed it “excellent speech, striking exactly at our weak point.” Merilles (Australia), in private conversation called it, “thoughtful speech, pointing direction we should all take.” No comment yet from GRC Mission.
- Press has shown great interest in speech and generally are pressing for elaboration. Among comments so far: Estabrook (Wash Post) “looks like a two China policy”; Tanner ( NY Times): “important departure in US policy”; Yoshida (Asahi): “dropping opposition to Peking’s entry is beginning step to two Chinas policy.” Lin of Chinese [Page 541]Central News Agency was among those inquiring whether speech means change in US policy or only change in emphasis. In responding to press inquiries, Mission spokesmen have refused elaborate or comment on speech, saying it speaks for itself and requires no further elucidation.