The question of Chinese representation was first brought to the
attention of the United Nations as a result of telegrams dated 18th
November, 1949, from Chou En-lai to Secretary-General Lie and the
President of the General Assembly (Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines)
announcing the formation of a new Chinese Government and repudiating the
delegation of the Chinese Nationalists, (1) The General Assembly was in
seagion at the time, but the credentials of the Chinese representatives
had already been approved and no action was taken.(2)
After the conclusion of the session, the Soviet representative raised
the question of Chinese representation in the Security Council, at a
meeting held on 29th December, 1949. He said that the Soviet Government
supported the requeat of Chou En-lai for the repudiation of the
representatives of Nationalist China, but he did not submit any formal
proposal of his own. The representative of Nationalist China declared
that he spoke for the legitimate government of China. The President of
the Council for the month (representative of Canada) suggested that the
Council, having heard the statements, should pass to other business, and
the Soviet representative raised no objection. (3)
On 8th Jamiary, 1950, Chou En-lal sent a note to Secretary-General Lle
and members of the Security Council protesting at the Council's failure
"to expel the Illegitimate representative of the Chinose Kuomintang
reactionary clique", (4) At the first opportunity, the Soviet
representative raised the matter again in the Council and formally
proposed that the credentials of the representatives of Nationalist
China be rejected. As it happened, the President for the month was the
representative of Nationalist China, and he ruled that the Soviet
proposal should be circulated and a special meeting of the Council
convened to consider it. The Soviet representative challenged the
ruling, but it was upheld. The Soviet representative then declared that
he would not take part in the business of the Council, and withdrew.(5)
The Council met again two days later to consider the Soviet proposal,
and on this occasion the representative of Nationalist China ceded the
presidency to the Cuban representative. After a debate extending over
two meetings, the Soviet draft resolution was rejected by 6 votes to 3,
with 2 abatentions. (6) The Soviet representa- tive declared that he
could not sit in the Council "as long as the representative of
the Kuomintang group has not been excluded", and he walked out of the
meeting.(1) He did not return until the following August, when it was
his turn to preside, and it was in the absence of the Soviet
representative that the Council authorized U.N. military action to
support South Kores.(2)
On 19/20 January 1950, Chou En-lai sent a further communication to
Secretary- General Lie and members of the Security Council announcing
that Chang Wen-tlen had been appointed "Chairman of the delegation of
the People's Republic of China to attend the meetings and to participate
in the work of the United Nations..." (3) Secretary-General Lie
thereupon entered into informal conversations with members of the
Security Council, giving to some of them copies of a confidential
memorandum on the legal aspects of problems of U.N, representation which
had been prepared in the Secretariat, Parts of this were leaked to the
Press, so on 8th March, Lie sent a copy to the President of the Security
Council for publication, (4)
The legal memorandum distinguished between diplomatic recognition "which
each State decides in accordance with Its own free appreciation of the
situation", and U.N. representation, which involves "an inquiry as to
whether the new government exercises authority within the territory of
the State and is habitually obeyed by the bulk of the population". The
delegation of Nationalist China took strong exception to the circulation
of the memorandum, which it described as "an attack on the cause of
freedom" and a departure from the neutrality required of an
International civil servant.(S) Thereafter, the Chinese Nationalists
treated Secretary-General Lie with considerable reserve and abstained in
both the Security Council and the General Assembly later in the year
when the extension of Lie's term of office was put to the vote.(6)
During the course of the Security Council meetings in Jamary 1950, India
suggested that the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Council were
lacking in clarity regarding representation and credentials, and
proposed two amendments to the Rules.( These were referred to the
Committee of Experts, which is composed of all the members of the
Security Council, The Committee of Experts agreed with the
(1)
(2)
Ibid., 460th meeting (12 Jan. 1950) and 461st meeting (13 Jan. 1950),
pp.1-16. Security Council resolutions 82 (25 June1950), 83 (27 June
1950),
84 (7 July 1950), and 85 (31 July 1950),
(3)
(1)
U.N. doc. A/1123, 21 Nov. 1949.
(2)
(3)
GAOR (General Assembly Official Records), 4th session, 227th plenary
meeting (24 Sept. 1950), p.48,
SCOR (Security Council Official Records), 4th year, 458th meeting
(29 Dec, 1949), pp.1-3.
(4)
U.N. doc. 9/1462, 24 Fob, 1950, p.2.
(5)
SCOR, 5th year, 459th meeting (10 Jan. 1950), pp.1-4.
(7)
(6)
Against the Soviet draft: Nationallet China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt,
France,
United States. In favour: India, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia. Abstained:
Norway, United Kingdom.
(5)
[bid., pp.23-26, 8/1470.
(6)
U.N, doc. S/1462, 24 Feb. 1950, pp.2-3.
(4) SCOR, 5th year, Supplement for Jan, to May 1950, pp.18-29, S/1466,
2000
Trygve Lie, In The Cause of Peace, New York, Macmillan, 1954,
pp.376-377; Stephen M. Schwebel, The Secretary-General of the United
Nations, Harvard Univeralty Press, 1952, pp.169-190;
GAOR, 5th session, 297th plenary meeting (31 Oct. 1950), paras. 168-169.
Ibid., 459th moeting (10 Jan. 1950), pp. 8-9; 460th meeting (12 Jan,
1950). pp. 6-7; 462nd meeting (17 Jan. 1950), pp. 1-12; Supplement for
January to May 1950, pp. 2-3, S/1447.
first of the Indian proposals, and the Security Council revised the
Provisional Rules of Procedure to make it clear that credentials should
be issued by the Head of the State or the Government concerned or its
Forelgo Ministers.(1) The other Indian proposal sought to establish a
uniform procedure for dealing with questions of representation in U.N.
organs. The majority of members of the Committee of Experts considered
that this matter should be studied by the General Assembly, and the
Security Council took no aetion on this part of the Indian proposal.(2)
On 1 August, 1950, the Council met under the presidency of the Soviet
repre- sentative, The President ruled that "the representative of the
Kuomintang group" was not entitled to take part la meetings of the
Council, but the decision was challenged and over-ruled. (3)
The matter was raised directly In the Security Council on three
subsequent occasions: 10 November 1951, 31 January 1955, and 8 September
1955, On the second of these occasions, the Council adopted a United
States proposal "not to consider any proposals to exclude the
representative of the Government of the Republic of China, or to seat
representatives of the Central People's Government of the People's
Republic of China". (4) Since then, there has been no substantial debale
and no voting in the Security Council on the question of Chinese
representation. Communist representatives have occasionally denied the
Chinese Nationalists the normal diplomatic courtesies, and there have
sometimes been difficulties about consultations when it has been the
turn of Nationalist China to preside.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Ibid .. pp. 16-18, S/1457 nod Corr, 1, para, 4; 468th meeting (28 Feb.
1950), pp. 9-10. Ibid., Supplement for January to May 1950, pp. 16-18,
9/1457 and Corr, 1, paras. 5-12; 468th meeting (28 Feb. 1950), pp.
10-11.
SCOR, 5th year, 480th meeting (1 Aug. 1950), pp. 1-12. Against the
President's ruling: Nationalist China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France,
Norway. United Kingdom, United States. In favour: india, Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia. Ibid., 6th year, 566th meeting (10 Nov. 1951), p.1; 10th
year, 689th meeting (31 Jan. 1955), paras, 1-27; 700th meeting (8 Sept.
1951), paras, 1-5. There was no vote on 10 November 1951 or 8 September
1955, The U.S. motion on 31 January 1955 was supported by Belgium,
Brazil, Nationalist Chion, France, Irun, New Zealand, Peru, Turkey,
United Kingdom. United States. The only negative vote was cast by the
Soviet Union.
THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The proceedings In the General Assembly on Chinese representation have
been more varied and significant than those in the Security Council. In
the autum of 1950, Cuba asked the Assembly to take up the matter which
India had raised in the Security Council earlier in the year,
"Recognition by the United Nations of the representation of a Member
State". Cuba explained that the item did not refor only to the formal
problem of credentials "but to the problem that arises with regard to
the legality of the representation of a Member State". (1) The matter
was referred to the Assembly's Ad Hoc Political Committee, which
established a Sub-Committee of 14 membera "to consider the item in the
light of all the proposals, amendments, suggestions and views presented
in the course of the debate". The Sub-Committee, by 8 votes to 4 with 2
abstentions adopted a draft resolution which, as amended by Belglum and
Egypt, was approved by the Ad Hoc Political Committee and later by the
plenary Assembly.(2)
The General Assembly's decision of 1950 on the question of
representation has often been referred to in U,N, debates, and part of
it has been formally recalled In six later resolutions of the Assembly
dealing with "the preliminary question", as it is called (see pp. 8-12).
It is rare for the resolution to be quoted in full, however, and it may
be useful to give the complete text here. (3)
(1)
(2)
€0
(3)
The General Assembly
Considering that difficulties may arise regarding the representation of
a Member State in the United Nations and that there is a risk that
conflicting decisions may be reached by its various organs,
I
Considering that it is in the interest of the proper functioning of the
Organization that there should be uniformity in the procedure applicable
whenever more than one authority claims to be the government entitled to
represent a Member State in the United Nations, and this question
becomes the subject of controversy in the United Nations.
Considering that, in virtue of its composition, the General Assembly is
the organ of the United Nations in which consideration can best be given
to the views of all Member States in matters affecting the functioning
of the Organization as a whole,
GAOR, 5th session, Annexes, Agenda Item 61, pp. 2-3, A/1308. Ibid., pp.
8-15, A/AC.38/L.45 and A/1578. Those voting in favour of the draft in
the Sub-Committee were Australia, Belgium, Nationalist China, Cuba,
Denmark, Egypt, United States, Uruguay. Against: Dominican Republic,
France, India, Venezuela. Abstained: Turkey, United Kingdom, General
Assembly resolution 396(V) (14 Dec. 1950),
1. Recommends that whenever more than one authority claims to be the
2.
government entitled to represent a Member State in the United Nations,
and this question becomes the subject of controversy in the United
Nations, the question should be considered in the light of the purposes
and principles of the Charter and the circumstances of each case:
Recommends that the attitude adopted by the General Assembly or its
Interim Committee concerning any such question should be taken into
account in other organs of the United Nations and in the specialized
agencies;
3. Declares that the attitude adopted by the General Assembly or its
interim Committee concerning any such question shall not of itself
affect the direct relations of Individual Member States with the State
concerned;
Requests the Secretary-General to transmit the present resolution to
other organs of the United Nations and to the specialized agencies for
such action as may be appropriate.
As regards the particular question of Chinese representation, the
General Assembly established a special committee la 1950, but the
committee's report contained no recommendations, and the Assembly merely
took note of the report. (1) The Assembly decided in 1951-1953 to
postpone consideration of proposals on Chloese representation, (2) and
decided in 1954-1960 "not to consider" such proposals. (3) Beginning in
1961, however, the Assembly has considered and voted on proposals to
change the representation of China in plenary meeting, and the question
has also come up repeatedly in meetings of the Credentials
Committee.(1)
Since 1961, there have been three separate questions on which votes have
been taken in the Assembly. The first has been simply whether to seat
representatives of Peking or Talwan. On six occasions, this has been
preceded by a vote on "the preliminary question". Article 18 of the U.N.
Charter lists a number of categories of "Important" questions on which a
two-thirds majority vote is needed. The third paragraph of Article 18
declares that decisions on "other questions" (that is to say, questions
which are not Important) shall be made by majority vote, as also shall
"the determination of additional categories of (Important) questions..."
In 1961 and 1965-1969, the Assembly was asked to determine whether
proposals to change the representation of China were "important", as
that word is used in Article 18 of the Charter.
The third question, which was put to the vote In 1966-1969, was whether
or not to establish a committee to explore and study all aspects of the
situation. Tables 1 (pp.20-23), 2(pp.24-27), and 3(pp. 28-31) show the
votes of U.N, Member States on these three questions, Table 4(p. 32)
ahows which States have diplomatic relations with Nationalist China,
which have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic, and which
with neither.
(1)
GAOR, 5th session, 277th meeting (19 Sept. 1950), paras. 8-191; 332ad
meeting (5 Nov. 1951), paras, 6-33, resolution 490(V).
(2)
GAOR, 6th session, 342nd meeting (13 Nov. 1951), paras. 83-155; 7th
session, 389th meeting (25 Oct, 1952), paras. 1-55; 8th session, 432nd
meeting
(1)
(3)
(16 Sept. 1953), paras. 19-158; resolutions 800(VID) and 903(VIII).
GAOR, 9th session, 473rd meeting (21 Sept. 1954), paran, 19-158; 10th
session, 516th meeting (20 Sept. 1955), paras. 16-111; 11th session,
578th meeting (15 Nov, 1956), paras. 106-224; 579th meeting (15 Nov,
1956), persa. 1-138; 580th meeting (18 Nov. 1956), paras, L-140; 12th
session, 684th meeting (23 Sept. 1957), paraa, 61-219: 685th meeting (24
Sept. 1957). paras. 1-184; 686th meeting (24 Sept. 1957), paras. 69-207;
13th session, 753rd meeting 122 Sept. 1958), paras, 1-280; 754th meeting
(23 Sept, 1958), paras, 1-151; 755th meeting (23 Sept. 1958), paras.
1-96; 14th session, 801st meeting (21 Sept. 1959), peras, 1-192; 802nd
meeting (22 Sept. 1959), peras. 1-43; 803rd meeting (22 Sept. 1959),
paras, 1-64; 15th session, 854th meeting (8 Oct. 1960), paras. 1-112;
895th meeting (8 Oct. 1960), paras, 1-84; resolutions 990(X), 1108(XI),
1135(XII), 1239(XII), 1351(XIV), and 1493(XV).
For the proceedings of the Credentials Committee on Chinese
representation, see GAOR, Annexes, Agenda Item 3, na follows: 6th
session. A/1983; 7th session, A/2294, paras. 8-19; 8th session, A/2490,
paras. 8-11: 9th session, A/2752, paras. 4-7; 10th session, A/3027,
paras. 4-10; 11th session. A/3536, paras. 11-15; 12th session, A/3773,
paras. 13-20;
3rd emergency special session, A/3891, paras 4-8; 13th session, A/4074,
paras. 4-14th session, A/4346, paras. 5-8; 4th emergency special
session, A/4499, paras. 4-6; 15th session, A/4743, paras, 6-9; 3rd
special session, A/4854. paras, 4-6; 16th session, A/5055, paras, 5-10;
17th session, A/5395, paras, 5-9; 4th special session, A/5432, parus,
5-12; 18th session, A/5676/Rev.1. paras, 7-10; 20th session, A/6208,
paras. 8-17; 21st session, A/6620, paras, 5-13; 5th special session,
A/6655/Rev.1, paras. 7-13; 5th emergency special session, A/6742, paras.
6-12; 22nd session, A/6990, paras. 7-12; 23rd session, A/7228, paras.
5-10; 24th session, A/7634, paras, 6-12.
For convenience, U.N. Member States are grouped somewhat arbitrarily as
follows:
No.
A.
No of Members
on 3rd July, 1970
States which have always voted in favour of a two-thirds majority (thus,
In effect, helping to perpetuate a situation in which Taiwan maintained
its representation)
56
(0) West (NATO members, Spain, Ireland, Sweden,
Finland, Austria, Malta, Cyprus, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa)
25
B.
(1) Eastern Europe
10
States which have changed from favouring a simple majority or abataining
to favouring a two-thirds majority (thus moving in such a way as to help
Taiwan to maintain its representation or to lessen the chances of
seating Peking)
6
(ii) Asia
18
C.
States which have always abstained
2
(iv) Arab States
14
D.
(v) Tropical Africa (excludes South Africa and
Arab North Africa)
States which have always voted in favour of a simple majority (thus, in
effect, increasing the chances that Peking will be seated)
38
35
E.
[v])== Latin America and Caribbean
24
Total U.N. Membership
126
States which have changed from favouring a two-thirds majority to
abstention, or from either favouring a two-thirds majority or abstaining
to favouring a simple majority (thus moving in such a way as to increase
the chances that Peking will be seated)
in three cases marked * in the Tables, votes were changed after the
result had been announced: the corrected vote is shown.
F-
States which have varied their votes
Total
12
12
126
"The preliminary question"
It would be possible to regard "the preliminary question" as more a
matter of law thao of politics; is the representation of a Member State
"important" within the meaning of the Charter? But in fact V.N. Members
seem to have been influenced by polition! considerations. With only one
exception, States consistently favouring the representation of Peking
bave voted that only a simple majority should be required to effect the
change. States consistently favouring the representation of Taiwan have
voted for a two-thirds majority.
The situation is in some respects anomalous. If all 126 V.N. Members
partielpate in the vote, 64 votes constitute a simple majority and 84
votes a two-thirds majority. If a two-thirds majority is to be required
to change the representation of China, one-third of the Members plus one
can prevent the change
that is to say,
43 Members can prevent the change even if 83 Members favour it. In order
to ensure that a two-thirds vota la lodeed required on the main
question, a simple majority of Members must vote to that effect on the
preliminary question.
The preliminary question has been put to the vote six times. The votes,
as shown in Table 1. pp. 20-23, are classifted on the next page in six
groups, as follows:
Only one state consistently voting for the representation of Peking has
at the same time consistently voted for a two-thirds majority, thus
lessening Peking's chances (the United Kingdom).
Votes on "the preliminary question" have been as follows:
A.
States which have always voted in favour of a two-thirds majority.
No.
(1) West
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain.
Turkey, United Kingdom, United States
17
(ill) Asia
China (Taiwan), Japan, Laos, Philippines, Thailand
(lv) Arab States
Jordan, Lebanon
52
B.
10
(V) Tropical Africa Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo
(Leopoldville), Gambia, Ivory Coast, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Swaziland, Upper Volta
(vi)
Latin America and Caribbean Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela
No.
D.
(i) West
12
11
States which have always voted in favour of a simple majority.
Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden
(ii) Eastern Europe Albanin, Bulgaria, Byelorussian
S8R, Czechoslovakia, liungary, Poland,
No.
Romania, Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Yugoslavia
10
(11) Asia
20
Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Cayloa, India. Mongolia, Nepal, Singapore
Total
56
(lv) Arab States
Algeria, Iraq, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, UAR, Yemen
States which have changed from favouring simple majority to abstention,
or from either favouring a almple majority or abstaining to favouring a
two-thirds majority (date of change in brackets).
(v) Tropical Africa Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Mali,
Uganda, Zambia
(1) West
Cyprus (abstain to 2/3, 1987)
(ill) Asia
Maldive Islands (abstalo to 2/3, 1966)
(v) Tropical Africa
Gabon (absent to 2/3, 1965), Rwanda (simple majority to 2/3, 1966), Togo
(abstain to 2/3, 1965)
(vi) Latin America and Caribbean
Jamaica
(abetain to 2/3, 1966)
C.
States which have always abstained,
(1) West
Austria
(vi) === Latin America and Caribbean Barbados
I
E.
(vi) Latin America and Caribbean Cuba
Total
7
1
39
- 180
States which have changed from favouring a two-thirds majority to
abstention, or from either favouring a two-thirds majority or abstaining
to favouring a simple majority (date of change in brackets).
(1) West
France (2/3 to simple majority, 1965), Portugal (2/3 to abstain, 1965)
Į
Total
(ili) Asia
Malaysia (2/3 to abstain, 1969).
Pakistan (abstain to simple majority, 1965)
(Iv) Arab States
Libya (2/3 to simple majority, 1969)
1
(v) Tropical Africa
1
Burundi (abstain to simple majority, 1966), Congo (Brazzaville) (2/3 to
simple majority, 1965), Equatorial Guinea (2/3 to absent, 1969),
Total
INE
Mauritania (2/3 to simple majority, 1965),
Nigeria (abstain to simple majority, 1965),
Somalia (abstain to simple majority, 1965), Tanganyika/Tanzania (abstain
to simple majority, 1965)
Total
2
1
է
12
12
ཝཱ
13
States which have varied their votes.
F*
(110) Asla
Indonesia (simple majority 1961, 2/3 1966 and 1967, absent 1968 and
1969),
iran (2/3 1961, 1967, 1968, and 1969, abstain 1965 and 1966)
(lv) Arab States
Kuwait (abstain 1965, absent 1969, simple majority other years). Morocco
(aimple majority 1961, 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1969, abstain 1968), Saudi
Arabia (2/3 1961, 1966, 1968, and 1969, abstain 1965, absent 1967)
(v) Tropical Africa
Cameroon (2/3 1961, 1967, 1368 and 1969, abstain 1965 and 1966), Central
African Republic (2/3 1961, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, abataîn 1965),
Chad (2/3 1961, 1967, 1968 and 1969, abstain 1965 and 1966). Dahomey
(2/3 1961, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, not participating in the vote
1965), Senegal (2/3 1961, 1968 and 1969, simple majority 1965, 1966 and
1967), Sierra Leone (abstain 1961 and 1966, simple majority 1965, 2/3
1967, 1988 and 1969)
No.
C
No.
D.
States which have always voted in favour of the representa- tion of
Peking
38
E.
States which have changed from favouring the representation of Taiwan to
abstention, or from favouring the representation of Taiwan or abstention
to favouring the represention of Peking
F.
States which have varied their votes
Il
=
20
Total
126
It may be noted that 28 of the 40 consistent supporters of Taiwan are
from the West, Latin America, and the Caribbean area, and 12 are from
Asla, the Arab world, and Africa. The 8 consistent abstainers and 38
consistent supporters of Peking are more widely dispersed among the
groups. Of the "floating" voters, the movement bas on balance been in
Peking's favour (3 moving from Peking or to Talwan, 11 from Taiwan or to
Peking). There have been 20 fluctuating votes. One of the consistent
abstainers, the Netherlands, has diplomatic relations with the People's
Republic,
(1) West
A. States which have always voted in favour of the representation of
Taiwan.
Australia, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg. Malta, New Zealand, South
Africa, Spain, Turkey, United States
China (Taiwan), Japan, Philippines, Thalland
(v])
Latin America
Ecuador (2/3 1981, 1965, 1966 and 1963, abataio 1967 and 1968)
1
(ii) Asia
Total
12
(Iv) Arab States
Jordan
10
"The main question": Taiwan or Peking?
This has been put to the vote eight times; there was no vote during the
nineteenth seaslon (1964-1965) because of the dispute about the votes of
States in arrears la connection with peace-keeping expenses. The votes,
as shown in Table 2, pp. 24-27, are classified below In alx groups, as
follows:
A. States which have always voted in favour of the
representation of Taiwan
B.
C.
Statce which have changed from favouring the representa- tion of Peking
to abstention, or from favouring the representation of Peking or
abstention to favouring the representation of Taiwan
States which have always abstained
40
(V) Tropical Africa Gabon, Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia,
Madagascar, Malawi, Swaziland
(vi) Latin America and Caribbean Argentina, Barbados,
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Uruguay, Venezuela
7
18
Total
40
14
Fi.
States which have changed from favouring the representation of Peking to
absence or abstention, or from favouring the representation of Peking or
abstention to favouring the representation of Taiwan,
(1) Weat
Israel (1965)
(L) Asia
Indonesia (1968), Singapore (1966)
(P) Tropical Africa Botswana (1967), Democratic Republic
of Congo (1962), Ivory Coast (1962), Niger (1962), Togo (1969), Upper
Volta (1982)
Total
15
No.
No.
(vi) Latin America and Caribbean
Cuba
Total
38
1
E.
2
States which have changed from favouring the representation of Taiwan to
abstention, or from favouring the representation of Talwan or abstention
to Favouring the representation of Peking.
(1) Weat
Belgium (1969), Canada (1966), France (1965) Italy (1969)
[+]
(iii) Asia
Iran (1966)
4
1
的
Total
11
C.
States which have always abstained,
(1) West
Austria, Netherlands, Portugal
3
(V) Tropical Africa Mauritania (1963 and 1965),
Mauritius (1969). Tanganyika/Tanzania (1962)
(vi) Latin America and Caribbean Ecuador (1967)
Guyana (1968), Jamaica (1965)
(ii) Asia
Maldive lalands
1
(iv) Arab States
Kuwait, Lebanon
2
(v) Tropical Africa
Equatorial Guinea
F.
States which have varied their votes.
1
(vi) Latin America and Caribbean
Trinidad and Tobago
(1) West
1
Total
N
ఈ
(ii) Asia
Cyprus (Taiwan 1963, other years abstain), Iceland (Taiwan 1966 and
1967, other year abstain)
Laos (Taiwan 1961, Peking 1962 and 1963, not participating in the vote
1965, absent 1966 and 1967, abstain 1968 and 1969), Malaya/Malayala
(abstain 1962, other years Taiwan)
Libya (Taiwan 1961, 1962, 1969 and 1966, abstain 1965, 1967 and 1968,
Peking 1969), Morocco (Peking 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968 and 1969,
abetsin 1966 and 1967), Saudi Arabia (abatain 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1965,
Taiwan 1966, 1968 and 1969, abaent 1967), Tunisia (abstain 1961, 1966,
1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, Peking 1962 and 1963)
(Y) Tropical Africa Burundi (abstain 1966, other years Peking).
Cameroon (abstain 1965 and 1966, other youre Taiwan), Central African
Republic (abstain 1961, Peking 1965, other years Taiwan). Chad (abstain
1961, 1965 and 1966, other years Talwan),
Congo (Brazzaville) (abstain 1961, Taiwan 1962 and 1963,
D.
States which have always voted in favour of the representation of
Peking.
(1) West
Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
(iv) Arab States
5
(li) Eastern Europe
Albania, Bulgarla, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland,
Romania, Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Yugoslavia
10
(UI) Asia
Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, India, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan
(Iv) Arab States
Algeria, Iraq, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, VAR, Yemen
7
(v) Tropical Africa Ethiopia, Quinea, Kenya, Mali,
Somalia, Uganda, Zambia
7