China And U.N. IGNORED FORMULA

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30630, 22 December 1964, Page 17

China And U.N. IGNORED FORMULA

[By 1

FRANK OLIVER,

Special

Correspondent N.Z.P.A.] WASHINGTON, December 21. It was perhaps natural that American newspapers, in view of the official view of China, gave scant space to the Irish formula for solving “the China problem.” Some newspapers that pride themselves on covering world events adequately didn’t even mention it.

The “New York Times” seemed to be chiding them when it said the Irish formula “deserves more attention than it has received.” The “New York Times” seems to be doing its best to keep the subject alive and probably reaction from various delega-

tions at the United Nations will keep the matter before the public.

Back-Door Talks

This country’s position in the batter is uncomfortable because it is untenable. Officially a nation of 700 millions does not exist, although this is nullified to some extent by the back-door talks in Warsaw which have now been going on for longer than almost anyone can remember. The “Washington Post” summed up the absurdity of the American position a little while ago when it printed a cartoon showing the earth floating in space and two figures standing at Cape Kennedy shooting off rockets and space vehicles to the moon, Mars and Venus. Says one man to the other,

“and some day we might even establish contact with the other side of the world” and there on the opposite side of the earth is an extensive land marked “China.” Two Seats

The heart of the Irish plan is that Formosa remain in the Assembly and that Peking take both Assembly and Council seats but only in exchange for a pledge to uphold the Charter and co-operate in limiting nuclear weapons.

Of course no-one in the United States is naive enough to think that either Taipei or Peking is likely to accept the two-China proposal first off. Each one has claimed for so long to be the only legitimate government of China and that there is and can be but one China but the “New York Times” doesn’t seem discour-

aged by this. It points out that the Soviet Union and the i Ukraine have separate seats : in the Assembly and that ' this was accomplished without partitioning the U.S.S.R. . It sees no reason why the relationship of Formosa to Mainland China should be adjudicated and settled right now and it says the Irish proposal “has a considerable appeal to reasonable men.” That is undoubtedly true and private conversation proves that by this standard there are a lot of reasonable Americans about. The trouble is they cannot or will not say it out loud and clear. But it is being suggested to them that whereas the twoChina concept might well get a good majority in the Assembly, the chances are that within a year or so a majority might vote to exclude Formosa and give the China seat to Peking. Albania Tried Albania has tried to do this. The first time it cropped up it got 11 votes. A year ago that figure had increased to 41, while 57 voted against and 12 quietly abstained. Within the last year, as the “New York Times” points out, two African nations voting against have recognised China, as have France and two African states. Three others seem to be moving towards recognition and “most of the 15 former French territories in Africa south of the Sahara are likely ultimately to follow the lead of France.” Writing On Wall The writing seems to be on i the wall and in characters i easy to read. In the circum- • stances some observers can I quite understand why Peking , insists there is only one China and Formosa belongs to , it but remain a little puzzled 1 that Formosa continues to ' play the game of all or noth--1 tog.

Of course those who want a drastic solution to the China problem exist here in considerable numbers. Within recent days one columnist of Right-wing beliefs discussed the possibilities of dropping atomic weapons on China’s atomic plants, and I know of more than one person who said “hear hear” to that.

A thoughtful article of great interest appeared recently, written by George F. Kennan, the former Ambassador to Moscow, and before that head of the Planning Division of the State Department. He calls it “a fresh look at our China policy.” He paints the China scene at its blackest and says Peking presents the most formidable problem American diplomacy has ever faced, even worse than Stalin presented at his worst.

But, he went on, it was not necessarily America’s business to bring to the Chinese Communists or anyone else retribution for ail the injustices and sufferings they may have caused. “We are not the avenging angel of all humanity ... we must leave something to the Almighty, whose justice must be supposed ... to be superior to ours.”

“The stern action that some call for,” he says, “would unite a world Communist movement ‘now grievously and fortunately divided,’ and might start a world war. ‘lt is obviously not our task, at this juncture of history, to dispose of communism everywhere and all at once ‘though this doesn’t mean we must lose all hope for the future.” ‘No Less Important’

Kennan makes it clear that both recognition of Peking and its entrance into the U.N. would be repugnant to him but, he says, there are times when it is no less important to be able to communicate with an adversary than with a friend. As far as the U.N. is concerned, he thinks America would be unwise to put pressure on other Governments who may see things differently and while it is one thing to decline to share in responsibility for bringing Peking into the U.N., it is another to conduct a campaign to keep it out. After all, he adds, diplomatic recognition and U.N. membership are the normal conditions of international life for a great nation such as China. The “New York Times” goes a bit further. It says soon the issue may not be the entry of Peking to the U.N. but what protection if any can be given Formosa and “it would be wise for Washington to move now as Ireland suggests to shape a consensus in the U.N. on the minimum conditions Peking must fulfil to gain acceptance to the club.”