REJECTION BY CHINA

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27576, 5 February 1955, Page 7

REJECTION BY CHINA

’ U.N. Invitation Declined

LONDON, February 3. The Prime Minister of the Chinese People's Republic (Mr Chou En-lai) has declined an invitation to send a representative to the Security Council when the Council debates the New Zealand resolution calling for a ceasefire in Formosa Strait. He says that the proposed resolution constituted an interference in China’s internal affairs and is, therefore, contrary to the constitution of the United Nations. Accusing the United States of aggression, he called on the United States to remove its forces from “Formosa and other territories belonging to China.” "The United States aggression against China’s territory of Formosa has all along been the source of tension in the Far East,” the reply states, according to Reuter. “Recently, after it concluded the socalled ‘Mutual Security Treaty,’ with the traitorous Chiang Kai-shek clique, the United States dispatched additional large units of naval and air forces to the area of Formosa and the Formosa Straits, and openly made war threats and war provocations against the Chinese people in preparation for' an extension of aggression against China, thereby further aggravating the tension in the Far East,” the reply continues. Charge Against U.S. “In order to ease the tension in the Far East, eliminate the threat to the security of China, and put an end to the United States aggression, the Government of the People’s Republic of China fully supports the resolution submitted by the representative of the Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council concerning the acts of aggression by the United States of America against the Pepple’s Republic of China in the area. “The Chinese people’s exercise of their own sovereign rights in liberating their own territory is entirely a matter of China’s internal affairs, and has never caused international tension nor can it threaten peace and security. “But the representative of New Zealand proposed that the United Nations Security Council consider the ‘hostilities in the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China’ between the People’s Republic of China and the traitorous Chiang Kai-shek clique. “This is obviously to intervene in China’s internal affairs and to cover up the acts of aggression by the United States against China and is, therefore, in direct violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter. “The Government of the People’s Republic of China is firmly opposed to this proposal to intervene in China’s internal affairs in violation of the United Nations Charter. Since the United States occupied Formosa in 1950 the People’s Republic of China has repeatedly lodged charges with the United Nations demanding that the United Nations put an end to the acts of aggression against China by the United States. “However, the United Nations has never taken any action pn the righteous charges by the People’s Republic of China. On the contrary, it has repeatedly slandered the People’s Republic of China. “The Government of the People’s Republic of China cannot send a representative to take part in the discussion of the New Zealand proposal in response to the invitation of the United Nations Security Council.” Raids on Berlin Recalled. — All East Berlin newspapers today recall the heavy American daylight air raid of exactly 10 years ago, stating that now is the time for taking steps to prevent such a “crime” from being repeated. The newspapers publish reports about the 90-minute raid, which killed thousands of people and wiped out the centre of the city.—Berlin, February 3.

Although the State Department was publicly non-committal on the London reports, it was virtually certain that the “get tough with China” bloc in Congress, headed by Senator William Knowland, the Republican minority leader, would raise most vigorous objections to United States participation in such a conference. The Senator, whose views carried weight within the Eisenhower Administration, had made clear his position that any round-table talks with the Communists to get a Formosa cease fire could only lead to concessions which was tantamount to “appeasement and surrender on the instalment plan.” He held that view about the Geneva decisions on Indo-China. Often described by his critics as “the Senator from Formosa” because of his championship of the Chinese Nationalists, Senator Knowland’s reaction to Communist China’s refusal to come to the United Nations ceasefire talks was: “The Communists are not prepared to discuss a cease fire on any honourable terms. . . it is apparent now that unless the free world is prepared for a Far Eastern Munich, this is a place to let the Communist Chinese regime stew in its own juice.” Other congressional comment ranged from angry Republican denunciation of the Communist attitude as “virtual blackmail” to suggestions from some influential Democrats that it might be “just a stall or a bluff.” The State Department contented itself with a statement regretting the Chinese Communists’ “further flouting of the United Nations,” which, it said, would be up to the Security Council to consider. Senator Alexander Smith (Republican, New Jersey) said that if the Chinese Communists conquered Formosa it might lead to a loss of all Asia to the Communists. An influential member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Smith, said that at the very least a Communist Chinese conquest of Formosa would mean “a tremendous loss of face” for the United States and the Western world. “Of course, we all want to see a cease fire,” he said, “but unless we watch our step success of a cease fire would be on the Communist side.” He said the United States would make “every attempt” to solve the Formosa problem through the United Nations. Senator Smith was speaking before the annual Congressional dinner of the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce.