Much Talk Of Bias At Meeting Of U.N. Association

Press, Volume CI, Issue 30004, 13 December 1962, Page 20

Much Talk Of Bias At Meeting Of U.N. Association

“If I were appointed an independent arbitrator on the Indian-Chinese border dispute, China would win the argument in a walk,” said Mr H. G. Kilpatrick, president of the Christchurch branch of the United Nations Association, at a public meeting arranged by the association last evening. Another speaker, Mr M. Mitchell, said that he was openly and honestly convinced that China was in the right These, and other such remarks by Mr Kilpatrick and Mr Mitchell, drew a good deal of talk about “bias” during the meeting—by interjectors of the audience during a question session.

The meeting had been advertised as a panel discussion on the border dispute, but it consisted of two speeches, first by Mr Kilpatrick and second by Mr Mitchell, followed by a question session. Mr Mitchell was still speaking at 8.45 pm„ threequarters of an hour after the meeting began, and discussing facts of the Korean war •'as background to the philosophy of the Chinese leaders,” when a member of the audience rose and asked that he might "confine himself to the point of the meeting." "Mr Chairman, may I rise to a point of order?” said the man to Mr Kilpatrick, who was also chairman of the meeting. "Could I ask that the speaker direct himself to the point of the meeting? It is now quarter to nine, and we have not yet reached the border We are thousands of miles away.” Mr Kilpatrick ruled that Mr Mitchell's remarks were relevant to the topic. “Involved Question”

The border dispute, a very involved and intricate question, was a heritage of the davs of imperialism, said Mr Kilpatrick. No part of the border (which was about 2500 miles long) had ever been delineated by agreement.

"There has been a complete lack of factual reporting in the world press,” said Mr Kilpatrick. "We got all kinds of stuff of China aggressing. Charges and coun-ter-charges flew backwards and forwards from either side.” Mr Kilpatrick also referred to press messages about Chinese troops being "poised on the brink of rushing into Assam” and "all the silly tripe which you wouldn't expect from a man of Nehru’s reputation.” It seemed he was paying a price for help from overseas. . . The Chinese basic position was that there had been a traditional, customary line between the two countries said Mr Kilpatrick. None of the disputed territory had ever been occupied by India, except at the end of 1951. when its troops had chasgd out a Tibetan magistrate a*i taken the area tor itself. Mr Kilpatrick said it was certain that the dispute would never be settled by massing military support tor India, or a protracted border war. Pouring arms and military aid in would only distract both countries from their fundamental object of building a peaceful life for their peoples (Applause) “Chin* In The Right”

Mr Mitchell began by saying he stood openly and honestly convinced that China was in the right in the border dispute. He had more confidence in the Chinese people and their Government than in any other people in the world today. ‘That is where I stand. I make no apology for that,” he said. Mr Mitchell went on io say that he could not expect to compete with the politicians in Wellington—"those honest people”—nor could he compete with "the honest journalists” (glancing at ‘The Press” reporter in the front row), and "their honesty and integrity" Mr Mitchell went onto show a series of nine slides ("which we have bad made, he said), depicting various parts of the India-China border. Pointing out features on one map. Mr Mitchell became confused, and was corrected by members of the audence. When twice asked of the source of maps, Mr Mitchell each time merely said: "It is a Chinese map Other Indian maps shown had lettering saying that they were published by the Survey of India. Mr Mitchell frequently referred to •‘the illegal McMahon line. One member of the audience complained that the maps all appeared to come from the one source. “Bias”

Mr Mitchell ended by saying: “You can accuse me of being biased. AU right, I am —I am biased on the side of the Chinese to this particular dispute.” In has next

sentence be said that he was "open to be convinced.” "I may be wrong,” Mr Mitchell said. “You tell me where I am wrong—if you can.”

Mr Kilpatrick then “threw it open to the meeting” and invited questions. One man who spoke with an American accent hardly asked a question. but made a short speech. Which he ended by saying: “I am very suspicious of Chinese motives.” This was greeted with, fairly loud applause. The question session became a little heated at one stage, two or three speakers being critical of Mr Kilpatrick’s chairmanship. “I find their is a very biased attatude coming from the chair at every United Nations meeting,” said one man.

An Indian who was present was asked by a member of

the audience if he would jpeak, and present the Indian viewpoint on the dispute. Mr Kilpatrick said he had had his opportunity to do so. The Indian rose, and although saying he had not been m India for many years, would attempt to describe the situation as an Indian saw it He had hardly begun when Mr Kilpatrick said to him: “You could have said all this an hour ago.” Voices: Give him a fair go. Argument The meeting ended with Mr Kilpatrick arguing with Mrs E. Locke and several of the audience that China had withdrawn from all the disputed territory. “No, she hasn’t,” said Mrs Locke. “Yes, she has,” said Mr Kilpatrick. Mrs Locke and several other voices: No! Mr Mitchell was asked by a reporter after the meeting about the slides he had shown, and which some of the audience had criticised. Had they been made by the Christchurch branch of the United Nations Association? he was asked. Mr MiiteheU said that he had had the slides made himself. Asked about the source of the Chinese maps, Mr Mitchell said that they were Chinese Government, but when asked by what particular Government agency they were issued said: “I couldn’t tell you.” The branch’s secretary (the Rev. J- Cutmeen) then ascertained tha* they were taken from the “Peking Review.” Questioned about this publication, he said it was a Chinese Government one.