New York, 16 October 1963
1388.
Chinese Representation
Following is text of Australian statement in plenary this morning on Chinese representation item 1 —
Begins—
‘ The Australian Delegation has a clear and unequivocal attitude on the draft resolution now before this Assembly. Australia recognizes the Republic of China. The Australian delegation will therefore vote against the present or indeed any draft resolution which would displace the Republic of China as a member of the United Nations or which would substitute the Peking regime in its place.
This clear position flows inevitably from the fact of recognition of the Republic of China. We believe that this will be a decisive consideration for the majority of delegations since a majority of member Governments recognizes the Republic of China. We realize that there are other factors involved in the Assembly’s consideration of this draft resolution, particularly in the case of delegations whose Governments have a different position from ours on the question of recognition. It is nevertheless our belief that the result of careful consideration of these factors will reinforce the Australian stand in support of the Republic of China. I wish to consider these factors briefly.
In the first place, all of us here, whatever our position on recognition, must have regard to the history and to the future of the Republic of China. This is a Government which, from the very beginning of the United Nations, has consistently and successfully striven to uphold the Charter and to play its part in furthering the common aims of our organization. The Government of the Republic of China has conducted itself in peace and friendship, with a proper regard for the interests of other members in its own region and elsewhere. In the conduct of its affairs, it has discharged all its obligations under the Charter and has striven to live up to the precepts embodied in the Charter regarding economic advancement, social progress and human rights. In short, the Republic of China has proved itself, by its words and deeds over the years, a worthy member of this organization.
And then we cannot treat lightly the consequences of passage of this resolution for the people of Formosa. That is an island of eleven million people—a population greater than, or as great as, the populations of many of the states represented here. These people and their Government are in fundamental opposition to the Peking regime. We could not contemplate any action which would be tantamount to handing these people and their Government over to the Peking regime to take Formosa by force. That intention was reiterated before this Assembly this morning by, among others, the representative of Albania.
Thirdly, we must all have regard to the implications of bringing representatives of the Peking regime into the United Nations. The fact remains that the Peking regime professes aims far removed from those which animate all of us here and uses methods which we here have agreed must be ruled out in the common interest. The fact is that Peking has never shown itself ready to co–operate with the United Nations or to order its policies in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. This has been demonstrated in a variety of ways, but principally, of course, by Peking’s attitude toward the use of force. We are witnessing at this moment events which to many must have seemed inconceivable a short while ago—events which hinge upon Peking’s stated belief in the validity and efficacy of the use of force. Nor can we forget that this belief, held by Peking almost alone in the world, has a long history of practical expression. There was first Korea, where the United Nations, pursuant to resolutions of both the Security Council and the General Assembly, in a great act of collective responsibility, supported South Korea against the military aggression of North Korea, only to have Peking come in on the side of the aggressor. Then there is the sorry record of forceful suppression in Tibet,2 and the tragic events on the Indian border, which were so fresh in our minds when this question was being debated a year ago. Those tragic events involved an attack upon a country which had in so many ways demonstrated its desire to maintain friendly relations and which was at that very time engaged in negotiations with Peking.
There is also Peking’s record of fomenting subversion and covert aggression throughout Southeast Asia, and even beyond. Speaking for the Government of a country which is located in the Southeast Asian area, I find it difficult to believe the words of another [representative] here who [talks]3 of the Chinese Communists as ‘untiringly working for peace’ or, who talks of those who oppose the Chinese Communists as ‘indulging in ignoble anti–Chinese slanders’.
We speak from experience, experience of subversion and covert aggression in areas like Laos. We know that these are facts, that these actions continue, that despite appeals there is no sign of their stopping. We say, ‘By their deeds ye shall know them’.
Finally, need I remind representatives here that the Peking regime has characterized the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, so very widely hailed in this Assembly, as ‘diametrically counter to the wishes of the peace-loving peoples of the world’.
For all those reasons, and particularly because of the inflexible attitude of Peking in the great debate now going on about the use of force, my delegation suggests that even those who recognize Peking or do not recognize the Republic of China should consider most carefully whether this is the time to vote in favour of a draft resolution which could be taken as signifying the approval of the world community for a regime which by word and deed has demonstrated that it is fundamentally aggressive in its ambitions and in its motivations.
As I have said, the position of my delegation is clear. We recognize the Government of the Republic of China. We shall therefore vote against the draft resolution before the Assembly. We feel that the more general factors, of which I have named but a few, militate powerfully against acceptance of a draft resolution in these terms by Governments which have a different approach to recognition from our own.
[NAA: A1838, 3107/33/1/1, viii]
1 The Australian representative, D.O. Hay, was speaking in response to a draft resolution submitted by Albania and Cambodia. It read: ‘Considering the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations indispensable to the consolidation of the Organization and to the cause to which it is committed under the United Nations Charter, Bearing in mind that only representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are competent to represent China in the United Nations and all its organs, 1. Resolves that the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek, who are illegally occupying China’s place in the Organization, shall be immediately removed from all United Nations organs; 2. Invites the Government of the People’s Republic of China to send representatives to occupy China’s place in the United Nations and all its organs’.
2See footnote 2, Document 77.
3Text in square brackets in this document is inserted with reference to official text of the statement printed in Current Notes, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 46-7.