Case For Admitting Peking To United Nations

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31169, 20 September 1966, Page 18

Case For Admitting Peking To United Nations

(Specially written for "The Press” by the Rev. Phillip D Ramsay) For the first time in a decade the winds of change are blowing in Red China’s favour. Has the time come for New Zealand to set her sails to the wind? Of will our voting on the issue ignore the breeze when the General Assembly of the United Nations opens on September 20?

Unlike the United States of America, the nation most responsible for the exclusion of the People’s Republic of China from the world forum, New Zealand has never Leen rigid in her attitude. The Prime Minister, Mr K. Holyoake, has said that Communist China’s voice must be heard and its legitimate concerns taken into account in any major international negotiations At the time France gave recognition (January, 1964), Mr Holyoake announced New Zealand’s unwillingness to follow suit. “This attitude,” Mr Holyoake said, “is not the expression of an inflexible position. Were there any indication that the Peking Government was prepared to conduct itself properly, to modify its claims to Taiwan and to demonstrate its willingness to work for international peace, or if there were some other significant change in the situation, we should be willing to review the question.” Demand From Africa Has the time come? Are there any significant changes? China’s possession of a nuclear bombing device is Surely one. Another is the proportion of independent states from Africa and Asia who are now supporting in the General Assembly Red China’s admission to the United Nations. Up to 1955 the subject was raised merely as a point of order. Last year 47 member nations voted for China’s admission—with an equal number (including New Zealand) who voted contrary. Algeria’s representative, Mr Bouattour, in proposing that the subject be included on the agenda of the twenty-first General Assembly, called the move “the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China.” And so it appears to many people. Formosa hopes are that the door will remain closed. Political changes in Africa and admission of new member nations hostile to Communism could ensure the status quo. On the other hand, the degree of influence of the Peking Government on Southeast Asia countries may upset Taiwan calculations. This is an unknown quantity until the debate is heard and the votes counted.

Nearer home, one significant factor inviting a change of view is New Zealand’s increasing trade with Communist China. In the year ended June, 1965, we exported hides, skins, wool and tallow worth £l4 million. At the same time we bought £1 million worth of textiles, glassware, tools, musical instruments, and bristles for paint brushes. Does it assist our search for new markets, or establishment of good trading relations to ostracise China diplomatically and politically? U.S. Attitude But above all, the changing stance of the United States could reshape our country’s attitude—and Incidentally bring us a little nearer Great Britain’s recognition of Red China in January, 1950. Since Adlai Stevenson's address to the United Nations on December 1, 1961, there has been nearsilence. Recently the Secretary of State (Mr Dean Rusk), the Secretary of Defence (Mr Robert McNamara), and the Vice-President (Mr Hubert Humphrey) have suggested the possibility of change. For example, Mr Humphrey, in speaking to the U.S. Military Academy in June this year, pledged his country to try to widen its contact with Communist China. The continued isolation of the Asian Communist states, he said, “breeds unreality, delusions, and miscalculations.” Perverse behaviour is the reason given for refusal by successive New Zealand Governments since 1949 to recognise the People’s Republic of China. The External Affairs Review of January, 1964, and June, 1966, outline Mr Holyoake’s view. The predatory

actions against Tibet and Korea in 1950, against India in 1959 and 1962, and its claims to establish, by force if necessary, its rule over Taiwan and its subversive activity in countries in the Far East are stubborn facts. Red China sponsored and supplied the communising of North Vietnam. All along their southern borders they pressed forward into new territory. They refused partnership in the partial nuclear test ban treaty and the world disarmament conference is a record of bad behaviour, to be sure. New Zealand’s refusal to recognise China and our vote against admittance to the United Nations has had no edifying effect upon that nation’s actions. On the world scene our action may have made for us more enemies than friends. If our Government should maintain an inflexible stand it is likely to inflame hatred rather than promote tolerance and reconciliation. Records Examined Recognition of a government does not imply tacit approval of that nation’s policies. Nor is it apparent that New Zealand demands a good behaviour norm from every country seeking admission to the United Nations. The hasty recognition of the Kassem regime in Iraq is a case in point. It got into power by the assassination of King Feisal and other prominent government members. It would be difficult to substantiate the moral grounds of some nations which are in good diplomatic standing with New Zealand. It is true that the charter restricts United Nations membership to peace-loving states which are willing to take collective action to maintain international peace and security. But whose record is unsullied: Great Britain in Suez, Russia in Hungary, Portugal in Angola, America in Cuba, or India with Kashmir? The high moral hopes of the charter collide with the hard realities of nations not already made perfect. Peace Prospects Would it not be better in the interests of world peace for New Zealand to have a change of heart and persuade Communist China to commit herself to the aims, purposes, and principles of United Nations? Could we be generous enough to believe that the presence of the People’s Republic would strengthen the United Nations? I submit to you that only by recognition with all the legal, political and strategic problems thus involved can any progress be made in improving international relationships and the prospect of world peace. America is beginning to see this. Can we follow? The United Nations Charter in 1945 gave a seat to a nation called China, not to a person or government. For the Nationalist regime (virtually in exile on Formosa) to occupy a permanent seat on the Security Council with power of veto in the name of China is sheer presumption. The country of China was accorded status as one of the “Big Five” at the inception of the United Nations organisation. Whether we like Communism or not, it seems common sense to admit that the established government for the 700 million living on mainland China is centred on Peking. The aftermath of the Chinese civil war in 1940 (in the latter stages of which the United States took an active part) created the problem of “two Chinas.”

“China and Taiwan”

The willingness of the United States to modify the sad sterile policy it has pursued so long is the most hopeful sign of peace we have seen in vears. It is asking too much of New Zealand to move in the General Assembly to have Peking seated in China’s place at United Nations with provision for the Chinese Nationalists to retain their seats in the United Nations as Taiwan. We have no illusions that the problem of “two Chinas” will be solved easily or quickly. The changing attitude of the United States should facilitate the consideration of constructive alternatives to the present impasse. This is not to advocate the sacrifice of 12 million Nationalist Chinese to the Communists, as Mr Holyoake fears. Some form of international agreement or United

Nations protection could be worked out to safeguard the security and provide for selfdetermination of the people of Taiwan. Churches’ View Christian churches have tried to relate their ministry of reconciliation to the collective struggles of nations. Since 1950 the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand has reaffirmed its conviction that it is in the interests of peace and international understanding that representatives of the “Free World” and Communist China meet face to face under United Nations auspices and resolve longstanding differences. In 1954 it resolved, “That the Assembly confirm its conviction that the People’s Republic of China should become a member of United Nations and should occupy the seat on the Security Council allotted to China.” In 1957: “That the Assembly instruct the Committee on International Affairs to approach the Government with a view to discovering the reasons for the continued non-recognition by New Zealand of the present de facto Government of China.” Then again in 1960: “That the Assembly request the Government to support the recognition of the People’s Republic of China and the entry of Communist China into the United Nations in the interest of world peace.” The Methodist Church of New Zealand, at its 1956 conference, resolved: “So that the United Nations Organisation should be more truly an international forum, conference urges the Government that New Zealand should at

the next sssembly of the United Nations support the admission of the de facto Government of China.”

In subsequent years Methodists have studied and adopted the reports of the standing committee on international affairs and Conference has appealed to the Government both to recognise the People’s Republic of China and to press for its admission to the United Nations. Last month the North Canterbury Synod recommended that the Methodist Conference “request the Government to explore all possibilities that could facilitate admission of mainland China to the United Nations, and to recognise the People’s Republic of China.” The National Council of Churches of the United States convened a study conference in Cleveland, Ohio, in November, 1958, and a strong resolution to the government was the fruit of its labour. The United Church in 1956 said: “We urge our Government to exert her influence that the People’s Government of China be recognised by Canada and that Canada urge that representatives of this government of China be given membership in the United Nations.” What is the aim of these church resolutions? The central committee of the World Council of Churches has put it this way: “To help in the creation of conditions which will permit the 700 million people of China to share in the benefits and accept the responsibilities common to all members of the international community.” There can be no certainty that recognition of Red China will heal the damage caused by prevailing attitudes, but it would regularise relations and open the way to solution of other issues.