Evening star., 1951-01-27
Our Veto and Red China

resolution calling upon the United Nations to
bar Red China from membership, several diplo-
mats at Lake Success have been asking whether
this means that our Government has changed
its previously declared position the matter.
In response, according to the New York Times,
American delegate (name undisclosed) has
asserted that that position still stands.
AS defined by Secretary Acheson prior to the
Chinese Communist aggression in Korea, the
position is simply this: That the United States
will vote against but not veto, action to admit
the Peiping regime into the U. N. In other
words, If at least seven members of the Security
Council recommend such action and If the Gen
eral Assembly adopts the recommendation, our
Government, though voting in opposition, will
abide by the majority decision on the ground that
the issue is procedural rather than substantive.
Under the terms of the u N. Charter of
course, procedural matter is not subject to
the veto of any of the five permanent members
of the Security Council. Accordingly, if the
question of Red China's admission is in fact
procedural and not substantive then the un-
named American delegate-assuming that he
has been correctly quoted-has spoken in a
technically correct sense in declaring that the
United States Government, despite the Senate
resolution, has not changed its past position
the issue.
IN connection with all this, Sir Gladwyn
Jebb of Britain has told the General Assemblys
Political and Security Committee that China
already belongs to the United Nations and that
therefore the only question involved in the
situation is not the substantive question of ad-
mitting it cit has been Gin" from the start) but
the procedural question of deciding whether the
Nationalist government of Chang Kai-shek or
the Peiping Communists should be allowed to
speak for the Chinese people in the U. N. Leaving
doubt that the British view favors Pepngs
entry, Sir Gladwyn has gone on to say that
everybody should be careful to distinguish be-
tween the issue of voting to accept new member
and the issue of changing the representation of
an old member.
In an extremely narrow technical or legal
istic sense, Sir Gladwyn may be able to enlarge
upon this thesis with considerable forensic
brilliance but to do so he must resort to far
too much hairsptting to be convincing. Ger
tainly, considered in relation to the criminal
aggression in Korea, the issue of letting Red
Peiping represent China in the United Nations
can hardly be presented as a mere procedural
item. For it involves a challenge that strikes
at the very heart of the Charter-the principles
and obligations that measure the eligibility of
any government or state to be elected to
membership in the U. N
These principles and obligations include the
following: Cd That all member states be
''peace-lOvlng"; (2) that they settle their in
ternatonal disputes by peaceful means; (3) that
they renounce "the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political in
dependence" of other countries and az that
they shall give the United Nations every as
sstance in any action it takes in accordance
with the present Charter and shall refrain
from giving assistance to any state against
which the United Nations is taking preventive
or enforcement action"
No matter how cleverly Sir Gladwyn or
others may draw technical distinctions between
representation of an old member, they cannot
in any degree lessen the stark fact that the
Chinese Communist regime is fagrantly guilty
of aggression, of invading neighboring
try, and of waging a massive war against the
United Nations In short it has grossly violated,
and is still violating, all of the Charters key
principles and obligations. How, then, can any,
body argue in favor of accepting it now in
the U. NJ?
AS for the previously declared American
position-a position defined before Peiping sent
its armies into Korea-how can it sensbly be
maintained today? The Chinese Communists
have hit at the very substance of the Charter,
and unless and until they reverse themselves,
our Government will have every reason to veto
any move aimed at oustng Chiang's Nationalist
government to make way for them. The Ma
tionalists not guilty here, but Mao's Reds
are. 1t mocks reality and simple justice to say
that only procedure is involved in the question
of who should represent China in the U. N.