U.N. vote on China ‘start of trend’

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32461, 23 November 1970, Page 1

U.N. vote on China ‘start of trend’

(By

HENRY TANNER.

!, of the Near York Times News Service)

NEW YORK, November 22.

The United Nations may have passed a watershed when the General Assembly gave a narrow majority to a resolution calling for the admission of Communist China and the expulsion of the Nationalist Chinese delegation.

The vote Friday night had no immediate : practical Effect because ! a few moments earlier , the assembly also voted for an American-spon- 1 sored resolution stipulat-, ing that the change in ' the Chinese represents- 1 tion was an important ] matter and hence re- . quired a two- thirds 1 majority. ( The vote on the substantive ■ resolution was 51 in favour, ‘ 49 against and 25 absten- ( tions. Last year it had been < 48 in favour, 56 against and 21 abstentions. The vote on the two-thirds ’ resolution was 66 in favour j 52 opposed and seven absten-i tions.* Last year it had been : 71 in. favour, 48 opposed and four abstentions. 1 The saddest blow for the i friends of the Nationalists ; was that no fewer than 10 i countries defected from the bloc opposing the substan- , tive resolution and chose ab-, stention. This more than wiped out j the reverse switches of Cam-, bodia and Mauritius, which went from support for , Peking’s entry to opposition.. A landslide? But more important was the general awareness that this is only the beginning of a trend. Some diplomats, in fact, believe that by nextyear the trend will be a landslide. This obviously was not a parochial United Nations affair. There were no delegates who indulged their personal whims in the absence of Clear instructions from home. This was a vote that reflected the positions of the home governments and the realities of the world at large. Those who switched from abstention to support for the resolution calling for Peking’s admission acted for their own strong reasons. Canada, Italy and Equatorial Guinea had established diplomatic relations with Peking in the last few weeks. Austria and Chile both served notice that they will do so in the near future. Unlike Belgium, which is j also negotiating with Peking, they did not believe that they had to withhold their vote as a bargaining point. There is nothing accidental or reversible in the trend, therefore. During the coming year there will be more nations that will recognise Peking, and more of them will vote for giving it membership in the United Nations. There is, moreover the danger that support for the twothirds resolution too will col- I lapse next year, if the United States offers it again. Four countries that voted for the seating of Peking < this year also supported this < second resolution because | they are sincerely convinced s that the admission of Peking would be an immensely im- I portant event and should be < taken only with the backing | of a substantial majority. | But several of these coun- ’

tries have served notice that they will not continue to go along with the two-thirds rule if it should become a parliamentary gimmick to frustrate the will of the majority, as the Canadians have said. The United States which said after the vote that it will 1 "re-examine the new situa- ' tion,” thus has to decide whether it want to come back to 1 the assembly next year to a similar resolution maintain- ' ing the two-thirds rule. The other, more fundamental question that the United States has to re-examine is how the expulsion of the Na- ' tionalist regime can be staved j off, even when the admission of Peking becomes inevitable. ( The American delegation . for the first time this year placed all the emphasis in its j statement to the assembly on j its desire to maintain the pre- ( sence of the nationalists. It ] said nothing against Peking. , Its wish to see the 14 mil- j lion inhabitants of Taiwan | represented in the United , Nations is shared by many ■ delegations. , Many of those who held back, in fact, said that they < would vote enthusiastically | for the seating of Peking if - they could do so without ex- ] pelting the Nationalists. , The Algerian resolution, < which lumped both these i

issues into one sentence, did not permit this. But the feeling is that the United States would have no chance of success if it opened a last-minute drive for a “two-China” policy. A large majority of member countries takes the position that there is only dne China, and that Peking is its legitimate representative. What about a "one-China, one Taiwan” concept? Or a' “one China, two governments” theory, which would give Peking the Chinese seat, but would not expel the Nationalists pending a final settlement between the two regimes? The Belgians have been canvassing support for such an idea in recent months. There would certainly be large support in the United Nations for a resolution precluding the use of force by Peking against Taiwan, and vice versa for that matter. Presumably there would also be support for a recommendation that the inhabitants of Taiwan should have their rights to self-determination. But the sad fact is that solutions that might have been acceptable 20 or 10 years ago, if they bad been initiated by the United States then, will be immensely difficult and probably impossible to bring about now.