Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume XI

263. Instruction From the Department of State to Certain Diplomatic Missions¹

CA–3391

Washington, October 10, 1957.

SUBJECT

• Chinese Representation Issue at Twelfth Session UN General Assembly

Before the Twelfth Session convened, India requested the inclusion on the General Assembly’s agenda of an additional item entitled: “The Representation of China in the United Nations.” Pursuant to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure the Indian request was referred to the Assembly’s General Committee² for consideration.

In the General Committee the U.S. representative proposed that the Committee recommend to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution reading as follows:

“The General Assembly

• “1. Decides to reject the request of India for the inclusion in the agenda of its twelfth regular session of the additional item entitled The representation of China in the United Nations’;
• “2. Decides not to consider, at its twelfth regular session, any proposal to exclude the representatives of the Government of the Republic of China or to seat representatives of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China.”

On September 19, 1957, after voting separately on each paragraph, the General Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole by a vote of 9 to 4 (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Ceylon, Norway) with 2 abstentions (Guatemala,³ Tunisia). (The Chairman of the Committee, by practice, generally does not cast a vote, except to break a tie.)

The General Assembly, in plenary meeting, took up the recommendation of the General Committee on September 23, and after rejecting an Indian amendment, which would have substituted “accede to” for the word “reject” in the first paragraph by a vote of 43 to 29, with 9 abstentions, approved the two-part resolution the following day by a roll-call vote of 48–27, with 6 abstentions.

The final result of the roll-call vote on the resolution quoted above was as follows:

In favor: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Malaya, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan,⁴ Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussia, Ceylon, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Morocco, Nepal, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Sudan, Syria, Sweden, Ukraine, USSR, Yemen, Yugoslavia.

Abstentions: Cambodia, Israel, Laos, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia.

Absent: Union of South Africa.

This is the first time that Japan, Ghana and Malaya had an opportunity to vote on this issue in the General Assembly. Of the three, only Ghana cast a negative vote. The speech of the Malayan representative in support of the US proposal on September 24 was most helpful. The text of his short statement is enclosed (enclosure 1).⁵ The text of Ambassador Lodge’s statement at the end of the debate, which may be useful when discussing Chinese representation with the Foreign Office, is also enclosed (enclosure 2).

Compared to the voting at the Eleventh Session, the following shifts should be noted: (1) Morocco and Ireland, which supported the moratorium in 1956, voted negatively in 1957; (2) Jordan and Libya, which abstained in 1956, voted affirmatively in 1957; and (3) the Union of South Africa, which voted affirmatively in 1956, was absent in 1957.

At their discretion, the posts in those countries which voted affirmatively at the Twelfth General Assembly should express the appreciation of this Government for the support rendered on this issue, even though similar action has been taken by USUN, in New York.

Herter

Enclosure 2

New York, September 24, 1957.

Statement by the Representative at the United Nations (Lodge)⁶

Mr. President,

The United States and many of those who share our views about this matter have avoided any discussion of substance, but there has been so much said about substance that, under the right of reply, I wish to speak very briefly about that.

The argument that has been made by those who wish to inscribe this item about the representation of China boils down to the one word “realism”. In other words, no matter how much you like it or dislike it there it is, and that ought to be enough.

Well, I think that it is true insofar as internal affairs go. It is none of our affair here in the United Nations whether the internal administration of a country is Marxian communist or Soviet communist, whether it is liberty loving believers in social welfare or dictatorial socialists, whether it is competitive capitalism for a great many or monopoly capitalism for a few, or whether it is a mixture of all those things. That is not our business here.

But the question of what they do when they try to spread across their borders is another matter.

We may question, too, how “realistic” the current realism about Communist China is. When one reads the reports of large numbers of refugees streaming into Hong Kong, one remembers Mr. Quisling and the other puppets who governed Europe under Hitler. That makes you remember that the world is in a state of evolution, and that if there is one state of mind which one should not have in 1957 it is a fatalistic acceptance of the inevitability of things.

But, Mr. President, even if this judgment about the Chinese communists is realistic, let me point out that the United Nations is an organization that is not engaged in promoting realism. It is an organization that has a moral standard. This hall here is not a mere cockpit in which the criminal and the law-abiding are indiscriminately scrambled up. The United Nations Charter says that member states shall be “peace-loving”—“peace-loving”, that is the word.

Now if some of us here think that this Assembly, this United Nations, should become a cockpit in which the criminal and the law-abiding are indiscriminately scrambled up—and they have a right to that opinion—the thing for them to do is to go and get an amendment to the Charter converting the United Nations into that type of organization. They should go ahead by amendment to promote their views. But they should not seek to do it by nullification. That is what is involved in the contemplation before us.

Now, the record shows abundantly that the Chinese communist regime is not peace-loving. What they did in Korea, what they did in Viet-Nam, what they have done in Tibet, what they have attempted in the Philippines and in Formosa, and what they have tried to do in Malaya—which was listened to when the Representative of Malaya spoke of it with deserving respect—all prove beyond doubt that this Chinese communist regime is not peace-loving. In fact, I don’t think they themselves even pretend to be.

I think as the Representative of the United States you would all, putting yourself in my position, understand that I make mention of the fact that in the United Nations military action in Korea to repel communist aggression there, we in the United States suffered 140,000 casualties, of which 35,000 were deaths, and that these were almost all of them inflicted by the Chinese communists—and that is something that it is only human for us to remember.

The fact is, Mr. President, that the United Nations itself officially and formally and after due consideration branded the Chinese communists aggressors in Korea. And it seems to me reasonable to hold that the United Nations settled this issue when it took that position. If it wants to unsettle it, let it repeal that decision. That has never been done.

Now, Mr. President, before I take my seat, let me say that I speak as a friend of the Chinese people, as one who admires the great soul of the Chinese people, its steadfastness, its courage, its individualism, its culture. I speak as the representative of a country whose citizens have had wonderfully close and intimate relations with the Chinese people ever since the beginning of the United States of America.

We oppose this proposal not because of our disapproval of the interior social system, not because the present regime was not popularly elected, not because it came to power by violence, but simply because to admit the Chinese communists would stultify the United Nations and would thus destroy the usefulness of the United Nations.

Feeling this way, it must be clear to all how devastatingly divisive debate on this question would be and why, therefore, we urge our colleagues to oppose the Indian amendment and to support the American proposition.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320/10–1057. Sent to 82 posts and to the Political Adviser on the Staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet.
2. The General Committee is made up of the: 1) President of the General Assembly (Sir Leslie Munro of New Zealand); 2) eight Vice Presidents; and 3) Chairmen of the seven Standing Committees of the Assembly. The following 16 countries are represented: US, UK, USSR, France, China, Ceylon, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Iran, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Thailand, Tunisia, Venezuela. [Footnote in the source text.]
3. The Guatemalan representative explained his abstention by saying that while he supported the first paragraph of the draft resolution, he had procedural doubts as to the competence of the General Committee to recommend the second paragraph. [Footnote in the source text.]
4. Pakistan abstained when the vote was taken on September 24. The following day, however, Pakistan announced in plenary meeting that it wished to change its vote from abstention to voting in favor. [Footnote in the source text.]
5. Enclosure 1, “Statement by Dr. Ismail Bin Dato Abdul Rahman, Representative of Malaya, on Chinese Representation in Plenary Meeting of the Twelfth UN General Assembly September 24, 1957,” is not printed.
6. Delivered in a plenty meeting of the Twelfth U.N. General Assembly.