!
:
A/PV.1606 44-45
(Mr. Panyarachun. Thailand)
In view of those commentaries and the sources from which they emanated,
the delegation of Thailand can not but come to the very firm conclusion
that
Me People's Republic of China in its present course of policy does not
in any way deserve the epithet of "peace-loving", nor does it conform in
any manner to
the purposes and principles of the Charter, and thus fails by a long way
to
qualify for admission to membership in the United Nations.
In this connexion, the delegation of Thailand also rejects the
contention of some advocates of Peking's admission that the barring of
its entry by the United Nations has given a sense of isolation to the
Peking régisé, vhịch în turn
has caused it to strike an aggressive and recalcitrant attitude. Its
admission
to the United Nations, those advocates often go on to argue, would rid
Paking
of the sense of isolation and transform it eventually into a
peace-loving nation.
My delegation contends, in the first place, that the apparent isolation
in
which the People's Republic of China could be said to find itself is not
the
affect of any action by any world organization or any group of States or
even
This by several individual States, but a deliberately self-imposed
policy.
contention of ours seems to have found support in the Press Release
dated 16 February 1967 of the Soviet Mission to the United Nations,
wherein, page 9, it vas stated:
+ the Chinese leadership had to isolate its country to erect a 'Chinese
vall to keep its people away from the entire progressive world
public...".
1
MW/1¢
A/PV.1606
46
MW/1c
A/PV,1506
47
(Mr. Parverachun, Thailand)
Radio Moscow on 24 July 1967 vu even more explicit and offered a more
substantial reason. It sold:
"The current hostile and subversive campaign led by Peking sgainst
China's neighbours, including Barta, India, Nepal, the Mongolian
People's Republic, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, is not only aimed
at drawing these countries into the orbit of Chinese domination, but
also pursues concrete objectives upon China's domestic scene, Peking
leaders want to make the people of China believe that they are
surrounded by enemies, They want to educate the Chinese in the spirit of
hatred for other peoples, which they hope will provide fertile soil for
the ideas of great power chauvinism,
H
The
From the above, therefore, the delegation of Thailand very much doubts
if representation in the United Nations would in any way lessen the
isolationist
reference of the Government of the People's Republic of China, As for a
possible meliorating effect, the Thai delegation does not believe the
United Nations to be a reformatory school.
In the ultimate analysis of this question of the representation of
China, an attempt must be made at the conjecture of the behaviour of the
People's Republic of China if it were to be admitted into the
functioning of our Organization. As I have already said early on in this
statement how uniformity could be drawn from the perfect behaviour of
the Republic of China in the United Nations and in its other shares of
diplomatic activities a similar uniformity could be expected from the
Peking régime. On immediately calls to mind the depredations committed
by the followers of the >-called "Great Cultural Revolution" against the
personnel of the various foreign Embassies, as vell as the unruly
behaviour of the communist Chineas representatives abroad in total
disrespect for the dignity and sovereignty of the foreign nations, These
scenes have been variously described by the world press and their conte
opera nature need not be elaborated upon here, Let na quote the
conclusions draw in this direction by two Soviet professors
of law in an Izvestia article on 13 September 1967; in one place they
described the Betions as follows:
1
I
·
Mr. Penvarachun, Thailand)
"With the full connivance of the Chinese official authorities, in 1967
alone gross violations of diplomatic privileges and immunities vere
perpetrated against the staff and Dabassies of Bulgaria, Hungary,
Yugoslavia, Mongolia, India, Indonesia, Burua, France and Britain...
The article vent on to conclude that;
"
---
||
The Chinese authorities' position is an outright violation of generally
recognized standards of international law, a manifestation
of great power chauvinim, an attempt at exerting pressure on and talking
with foreign States from positions of strength, which has
nothing in common with international law,"
The foregoing shows the care which the delegation of Thailand has taken
Taken
in considering the question at issue in all its various faceta and in
drawing certain obvious conclusions from all those considerations.
together, those conclusions go to for our final decision that the case
in favour of admitting the People's Republic of China to any sort of
membership of the United Nations is still far from adequate.
Furthermore,
its admission at the expense of the Republic of China would add
injustice
mmittee
or even immorality to inadequacy. We therefore have no hesitation in
rejecting the draft resolution in document A/L.531; and, for the same
reasons, we
cannot see any ground for establishing a United Nations study committee
on this question, as proposed by the delegation of Italy and others in
document A/L. 533. Neither can we see that, if established, such a could
serve any really useful and practical purpose. In coming to a decision
on both cases, however, we dem it fit that the "important question" rule
should be applied and we sincerely recommend the draft resolution in
document A/L. 532 for priority and adoption by the General Assembly.
Before I end my statement on the subject under discussion I should like
to say a few words on a different matter, My delegation cannot help but
express its disappointment once again at the tedious attempt of the
representative of Cambodia to make a further slanderous statement
against Thailand in the course of the present dabata.
I
MW/1c
A/PV.1606
48
(Mr. Panvarachun. Thailand)
The Cambodian representative's habitual indulgence in polemics is
well known to us all and it came as no surprise to us when, in his
wisdom,
he chose to resort again to this tactic. The conclusion which we can
draw
from his statement is that he, unlike others, has been neither able nor
willing to cast aside the vestiges of his colonial upbringing and emerge
as
a free and independent agent. Indeed the Cambodian representative has
tried
his level best to emulate the methods of his new lord and master, the
Peking
régime,in engaging in malicious verbal warfare, as well as in conducting
hostile activities against all its neighbours.
The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): Before adjourning the
meeting I should like to remind Members of the Assembly of the
announcement I made yesterday morning, namely, that if there is no
objection the list of
speakers on the question of the restoration of the lawful rights of the
People's Republic of China in the United Nations will be closed
tomorrow, Friday
24 November, at noon.
I should like to propose also that, subject to the assent of Members,
the Assembly should set a time-limit for for submitting draft
resolutions or
amendments on this question. If delegations agree, the time-limit will
be
Monday, 27 November, at noon.
The meeting rose at 12.25 p.".
H
I
·
I
I
UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL
ACSEMBLY
President:
68
A
PROVISIONAL
A/PV.1603
RECEIVED "
21 November 196 ARCHIVES No 31
- 7DEC 1967
ENGLISH
Twenty-second Session
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PROVISIONAL VERBATIM RECORD OF THE SIXTEEN HUNDRED AND
THIRD PLENARY MEETING
Held at Headquarters, New York,
on Tuesday, 21 November 1967, at 3 p.m.
Mr. MANESCU
(Romania)
Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in
the United Nations [93] (a), (b) and (c) (continued)
This record contains original speeches and interpretations. The final
text, containing translations, will be distributed as soon as possible.
Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should
be sent in triplicate, within three working days, to the Chief,
Conference and Meetings Control, Office of Conference Services, Room
1104, and incorporated in mimeographed copies of the record.
AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUTED ON 22 NOVEMBER 1967, THE TIME-LIMIT FOR
CORRECTIONS WILL BE 27 NOVEMBER 1967.
Publication of the final printed records being subject to a rigid
schedule, the co-operation of delegations in strictly observing this
time-limit would be greatly appreciated.
67-70173
I
TL/fw
A/PV. 1603 2
AGENDA ITEM 93
RESTORATION OF THE LAWFUL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN
THE
UNITED NATIONS:
(a) DRAFT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY ALBANIA, ALGERIA, CAMBODIA, CONGO
(BRAZZAVILLE),
CUBA, GUINEA, MALI, MAURITANIA, PAKISTAN, ROMANIA AND SYRIA (A/L.531);
(b) DRAFT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY AUSTRALIA, BLEGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL,
(c)
COLOMBIA, GABON, ITALY, JAPAN, MADAGASCAR, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, THE
PHILIPPINES, THAILAND, TOGO and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (A/L.532
and Add.1)
DRAFT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY BELGIUM, CHILE, ITALY, LUXUMBOURG AND THE
NETHERLANDS (A/L.533) (continued)
Mr. ROUAMBA (Upper Volta) (interpretation from French): It is
now seventeen years that the so-called question of China has been on the
agenda of the regular sessions of the General Assembly. This sad record
of
longevity, in the blunt simplicity of its statement, reflects the
ineffectiveness and why not say it? the failure of our Organization in
the search for a lasting and final solution of this problem.
Despite the changes in political systems, political leaders and
political
orientation in many Member States changes which could have suggested
the possibility of an infusion of new blood and therefore a somewhat
different appreciation of the various elements contributing to the
international
climate the "question of China", like so many other taboo questions,
has always been dealt with in the same fashion and disposed of by
approximately the same majority of votes.
For
I am sure you will agree that this ritual is hardly stimulating.
this reason my delegation is primarily concerned with avoiding, as far
as
possible, having the General Assembly travel the same roads as in the
past, especially those that have already led to dead-ends because they
were
characterized by vexatious recrimination and pointless vituperation
rather
than by any spirit of good-will bent on finding a constructive solution
and achieving a final settlement.
TL/TW
A/PV.1603
3
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
By creating problems where none should exist, by seeking to beat all
records for tenacity and perseverence, certain Member States may be
running the risk of having the Assembly sitting in permanent session or
devoting all the energies that might be employed elsewhere to keeping up
the polemics, to reviving passions and widening divisions. The scant
objectivity displayed in analysing the situation and the lack of
clamness in the statements made so far in the debates cannot lead the
Assembly to any just and lasting solution.
These things are what we fear.
My delegation deems it useful, by clarifying its position and indicating
the reasons behind its action. to make its own modest contribution to
the debate now taking place. We do this because we regard it as neither
wise nor realistic nor even clever to pass over in discrete silence the
behaviour
of more than one-fourth of mankind according to statistics difficult to
verify particularly at a time when so many "sorcerer's apprentices" are
so gravely threatening the peace of the world. We do this also because
the vital importance of the question is recognized by the majority of
States Members. Indeed, at its sixteenth regular session the General
Assembly expressly declared in resolution 1668 (XVI) that "any proposal
to change the representation of China is an important question" under
Article 18 of the Charter. This resolution was confirmed by resolutions
2025 (XX) and 2059 (XXI). We wish to cast a quick glance over the two
halves of the picture that we must constantly keep before our eyes in
seeking for a lasting
solution.
First of all, on the level of international law, my delegation believes
that the problem is badly posed. The wording of the text seems to us
debatable in both form and substance; furthermore, it contains an
explosive charge, an obvious a priori judgement, a vexing presumption --
a great many defects that serve only to hinder any calm and thorough an
examination of the matter.
Let us indeed consider the "Restoration of the lawful rights of the
People's Republic of China in the United Nations", Such a wording cannot
stand up under legal analysis. It supposes that there has been at least
TL/fw
A/PV.1603
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
a "mistake in identity", a "legal error", to employ modern legal jargon.
But for more than twenty years, ever since the historic gathering in
San Francisco in 1945, the disputed seat if it is disputed at all has
actually been occupied by the Republic of China. That country is, in
addition,
a founding Member of the United Nations and a permament member of the
Security Council under Article 23 of the Charter. Can anyone then
believe
that some indescribable blindness has taken possession of all those who
ever since the question was originally posed, have invariably replied
that
there was no mistake in identity and that it is the Republic of China
and
the Republic of China alone that should continue to occupy the seat in
the
United Nation? By what convincing arguments can anyone challenge the
judgement
of that comfortable majority which invariably pronounces itself against
any
alteration in the representation of China in the United Nations? Those
who submitted the explanatory memorandum in document A/6831 seem to us
not
the least bit convincing. Let us therefore stop trying to tackle this
question
by going up dead-end streets. Let us stop putting the cart before the
horse. Otherwise we shall have to revise the Charter, in the first
place,
to question the annual reports of the Credentials Committee, to run the
whole
film backward somehow to the very beginning of the session; for the vote
of the Republic of China has been counted every time a vote was taken,
as
each of us can testify. In short, we shall have to blot out the fact
that it is
this same Republic of China that has been and still remains a founding
Member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security
Council.
And after that, we could examine if that is the way to say it the right
of every Statu to be a member of the international community. It is
obvious
that none among us would wish to be party to any such exercise. If the
problem is presented thus, it is indeed insoluble.
These few preliminary considerations seem to us capable of clarifying
the discussion and placing it on a broader level, that of the
philosophical
and ideological alternatives that continue to serve as a barometer for
And in this case, my delegation
assessing the facts of international life.
TL/fw
A/PV.1603
5
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
would wish to state that, just as we do not presume to demand of anyone
else that he think as we do, react as we do or regard the United Nations
as we do, so too we have no intention of allowing anyone to force us
into any particular philosophical or ideological choice. It is the
principle of the sovereignty of States that is involved here.
BBS/vm
A/PV.1603 6
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
It might be replied that the defeat of the troops of General Chiang
Kai-shek
by those of Mao Tse-tung, whatever its cause, and the withdrawal of
Chiang Kai-shek
to the island of Formosa with the remainder of his army, the heads of
his party,
the Kuomintang, and his parliament, fully justify re-opening the
question of the
legitimacy of the claim of the Republic of China that it is the genuine
representative of all of China, But this interpretation, which is an
abuse of an
historical fact over which we have no control, will not persuade us to
vote for the
so-called "restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of
China" by
expelling the Republic of China, and choosing Mao against Chiang
Kai-shek, for this
is not the exile of a sovereign who thinks that he has lost a battle but
not the
war. Let us not forget that Formosa is an integral part of the territory
of China.
Let us therefore proceed by stages. Let us examine the question on our
agenda
only when the Republic of China has ceased to exist as a sovereign
State. For its
part, my delegation harbours no illusions regarding the highly
improbable nature
of that sinister forecast; it believes that reality here goes beyond
fiction,
However, the fact is that the two parts of China remain in a state of
belligerence.
Why should the United Nations choose one of the parties, and precisely
the party
that is continually threatening peace in the area? Why should the United
Nations expel the party that gives proof of peace and co-operation in
our international
community?
With respect to legality, we would find it difficult to deny a lawful
seat to the Republic of China and to attribute it exclusively to the
People's Republic
of China. The Republic of China legally does not constitute a Government
in
exile; on the contrary, Marshall Chiang Kai-shek has scrupulously
maintained a
government which functions on Chinese territory. To recognize him does
not
detract from our courage or from our honesty. Furthermore, the National
Assembly
of the Republic of China remains as it was the last one to be
democratically elected by secret and free universal suffrage in 1948 by
all of China, On the
other hand President Mao Tse-tung has not yet consulted the people
through
elections, Nationalist China, represented in fact and in law by the
Government
of President Chiang Kai-shek, exists, even though its territory has been
restricted
in size. As a comparison, the surface area of the Republic of Upper
Volta is half
BBS/vm
A/PV.1603
7
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
that of the state of Texas, and it has a population one-fortieth that of
the
l States. And yet the United Nations and the world have decided that our
vote should weigh the same as that of our eminent alphabetical
neighbour. Other
examples would be even more eloquent.
My delegation would like to avoid undertaking here a comprehensive
examination of the internal situations prevailing in the two parts of
China. We continue to believe that each state, each national entity,
each people, is free to choose its own régimes and institutions.
Furthermore, we believe that this is
a good thing. We respect the principle of non-interference in the
domestic
affairs of States. The popular communes, the great proletarian cultural
revolution, the truths of yesterday's masters becoming falsehoods for
those of
today, the purges and demonstrations of the Red Guard all of this, in
our view,
constitutes an attempt at readjustment on which we wish to make no
public
pronouncement.
But this analysis leads my delegation not to say "yes" to Peking.
This wording does not stand up to an objective analysis from the legal
standpoint, nor does it stand up to confrontation with the provisions of
the Charter.
Certain passages of the explanatory memorandum published in document
A/6831 are
not reliable. We will not dwell on those that appear to be subjective
judgements,
declarations of intention, pious hopes or propaganda statements. They
are as
revealing of a state of mind as is a good deal of the advertising
material with
which the world is so free, We can retain the following simple comments.
There is no provision in the Charter regarding the rights of States that
are
not yet members of the United Nations. No State is qualified to claim
rights alone either by passing over in silence its obligations with
respect to the
Charter or by proclaiming its intention to violate those rights and to
create
"a more revolutionary United Nations". Let us first stress our
obligations with
respect to a praiseworthy institution which has so far succeeded in
overcoming
great perils.
Let us avoid anything that might lessen its effectiveness and its
moral authority. Let us therefore propose nothing before actually
belonging to the
United Nations.
The authors of the Charter
being admitted to membership here
the Charter which each State must approve before
created the United Nations not on the basis
of universality but of selectivity. Let us not reproach them today for
having
BHS/vm/jpm
A/PV.1603
8-10
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
wished to be realistic first. The United Nations is an association of
States guided
by the same ideals, within which individual States must act jointly to
seek common
objectives. Article ↳, which states the conditions for admission;
article 5, when deals with the suspension of a Member State; and article
6, which provides for the
expulsion of a Member State these articles are eloquent in this
connexion.
Finally, there are States which are not members of the United Nations
even
though they apparently comply with the provisions of the Charter. This
proves that
the United Nations is neither a tribunal nor an instrument in the hands
of the
mighty; this proves that the United Nations is not excluding any State
in the world.
To enter the United Nations it is first necessary to fulfil, and
undertake to fulfil
the provisions of the Charter. But to agree to revise the Charter
because Peking
establishes this as a condition for its admission would be to open the
door to all
kinds of bargaining. There is no indication, moreover, that such a new
Charter
would have the blessing of the one that so scornfully denigrates the one
we have.
How can we then, in this context, restore the lawful rights of a State
which has never at any time or in any way, informed us that it intended
to become a
member of the international community? How can we reconcile with the
Charter the
fact that the sponsor has no one to sponsor? Can we wipe the slate clean
of the conditions set by Peking which are unacceptable because they are
gratuitously
insulting before it will consent to join our great family?
family? Can we deny the fact
that those conditions are not only inadmissible but are also accompanied
by
declarations of intention that are, to say the least, disquieting for
the United
Nations? If an individual Member State deliberately violates the
fundamental laws
of the Organization, that does not necessarily result in a decisive blow
against the
existence of our Organization. The examples which unfortunately
illustrate this
state of affairs become more numerous each year. But this situation
would become
fraught with consequences if it were the United Nations itself which, by
agreeing to
the admission of the People's Republic of China under conditions of
which we are all
aware, deliberately violated its own regulations and norms through a
concern to make
room for 700 million persons, without whose presence, we are told, no
major problem
of our time can be solved. What guarantee have we that, by some kind of
sorcery,
satisfactory solutions will be found to the major problems as soon as
Mao Tse-tung
replaces Chiang Kai-shek in our Organization?
RSH/eh
A/PV.1603
11
(Mr. Rouamba. Upper Volta)
That is why my delegation believes that the General Assembly going
beyond
te level of partisan positions and of emotional reflexes, and even
beyond a
legalism which, while useful as a point of reference, might at times be
abstract
should consider the facts with courage, lucidity and objectivity and
draw the
proper consequences from them. The Assembly must avoid any substantial
mortgaging of the future. It must not forsake too hastily its legendary
prudence
and wisdom.
Finally, the statements of Peking itself are very disquieting to us.
delegation cannot accept as conditions for the admission of Peking:
My
The withdrawal of the 1950 resolution condemning the People's Republic
of
China as the aggressor in Korea; we do not see by what process such an
act would
be possible;
The adoption of a resolution recognizing the error committed at that
time by
the United Nations; we cannot be asked to turn back the course of
history;
A complete revision of the Charter; certain preliminary precautions
would
have to be taken;
And, above all, the expulsion of the Republic of China; that would be at
once unjustified and illegal.
My delegation cannot accept either the still undenied statement echoed
in the People's Daily of 28 June 1967 as follows:
"Facts without number show that the United Nations is the instrument
of American imperialism in its counter-revolutionary double game, and
the
instrument of the Soviet revisionist clique in the double counter-
revolutionary game which it is carrying on in concert with American
imperialism.
"The United Nations has done much harm, and it is incapable of doing
anything good for the simple reason that it has become the place where
the
great Powers carry out among themselves their infamous jobbery, and the
instrument of the power politics of the United States and the USSR.
There
was a time when the United Nations was dominated by American imperialism
alone; today it is dominated by American imperialism and Soviet
revisionism
together."
RSH/eh
A/PV.1603
12
(Mr. Rouamba. Upper Volta)
Other statements are even more revealing.
Nations, Chou En-lai said:
When Indonesia left the United
"By deciding to withdraw Indonesia from the United Nations,
President Sukarno has opened the eyes of the peoples. They have
realized that the United Nations, where Yankee imperialism pulls the
strings, is in no way sacrosanct, and that it is perfectly possible to
oppose the United Nations and to withdraw from it that it is not at all
essential to belong to it. It might be worth while setting up
another united nations, a revolutionary united nations, to compete with
the Organization which calls itself the United Nations Organization but
which can do only harm and nothing good."
The firmest denial was not long in coming: Indonesia resumed its place
among us. Just as we regretted its departure, so we applauded its return
to and its enlightened participation in our work.
But how can we rejoice when nations interrupt the dialogue? In this
particular context, and desiring a thorough revision of Peking's policy
towards the United Nations, my delegation retains the disagreeable
impression that the consideration of the so-called question of China has
been distorted by emotional reflexes and the lingering bitter taste of
the worst moments of the cold war. The examination of the question is
distorted also because the great Powers, on which, once more, this
essentially depends, and the small Powers, the rank and file, have not
reached an agreement to delete this question from the agenda of our
sessions. Once again we wish to make a solemn appeal that we all write
our efforts and our influence so as to put an end to this tragic
rendezvous which is to the detriment of the third world, so that the
right of each national entity to safeguard its unity and to live in
peace and fraternity
with the rest of the world may prevail.
These reflections lead my delegation not to say "Yes" to Peking.
The second half of the picture opens with a very brief analysis of the
international situation on which ultimately depends the answer of each
State to the question which has been posed. What do we say?
RSH/eh
A/PV.1603
13
(Mr. Rouamba, Upper Volta)
The eternal problem of the divided countries appears woven into the text
h is proposed to us. And we turn round in circles unable to see a
satisfactory solution.
No problem of a divided people has yet been resolved
at the United Nations level.
any chance of settling them.
give us the proof of that.
The manner in which we approach them robs us of
Germany, Viet-Nam, Korea all are there to
Are we going to consecrate those divisions in the name of false
criteria?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.