Evening star., 1954-05-15
Diplomatic Recognition-Tw Two Viewpoints


(The jollospinC Is condensed per-
sion Of d speech By the British Am
bGssGdOr, Sir Roger MGkifs, at the
RiccobOnO Seminar at the Catholic
University Of America on Thursday
evenjnoJ s
-. AS you all know, the British
government recognized the Communist
government Of China in 1850. in COM
pany with q number Of other govern
ments. We continue to recognize it and
have no present intention of changing
our position. The United States has not
recognized the Peking regime. and the
administration has recently reaffirmed
its refusal to do so.
Now, there are no differences between
us in our objectives in the Far East,
even If we sometimes differ on the tim
ing. and the method Of our approach
to them. We are both equally concerned
to oppose and to prevent the spread Of
Communist imperialism. How Is it,
therefore, that we should be found at
variance on this question Of recogni-
ton? And what is the significance Of
this divergent position?
The practice Of governments in giv-
ing diplomatic recognition to each other
has fiuctuated through the years. and
the attitudes of the British and United
States governments have sometimes ap-
proximated and sometimes diverged.
Broadly speaking, there are two main
lines Of approach to be found in the
writings of the authorities, and in the
policies of governments. The one treats
recognition as an act based solely on
the facts, an act which follows upon the
fulfillment of certain objective criteria;
the other regards it as an act of policy
which signifies something more than
the recognition Of situation OF fact
and law. shall call the former the de
tacto principle, the latter the principle
Of legitimacy. 49,.
The practice of Great Britain has
always conformed fairly closely to the
de fGcto principle. If a government is
in effective control of the country in
question; if it seems to have reason
able expectancy Of permanence; If it
can act for majority of the country's
inhabitants; if it is able (though pos
sibly not willing) to carry out its inter-
national obligations; If, in short, it
can give a convincing answer to the
question, who's in charge here?",
then we recognize that government.
We are not comforting a favor, we are
recognizing a situation of fact. The
conduct of foreign affairs CAS- distinct
from the formation of foreign policy
is, after all, not essentially different
- ny hVpC
You do not have to like mans face.
or manners, or even morals, in doing
business with him. And even if you
do not want to do business with an
ugly customer, shutting your eyes won't
make him go away.
United States practice has fluctuated
more through the years than British
practice. In 1893. Jefferson laid down
a principle which has guided United
States policy in this matter more often
than not. 1--WE surely cannot deny to
any nation" he said, that right
whereon our own Government is
founded: that every one may govern
itself according to whatever form it
pleaseS, and change these forms at its
own will" This was echoed when
President Monroe sent a message to
Congress in which he denounced the
Czarist regime in Russia, while at the
same time saying that the United
States would consider that Government
de tGcto as the legitimate government.
A classic example of faithful adherence
to this principle was President Pierce's
recognition of five successive revolu-
tionary governments in Mexico during
the first few months Of the year 1856.
In 1923. Chief Justice Taft, arbitrating
between Great Britain and Costa Rica
on cognate question, ruled that the
issue is not the legitimacy of a de fGcto
recognized governments formation, but
whether it is established in such a way
that all within its influence recognize
its control. In 1881, Secretary Stimson
formally reaf1rmed the JefferSonian
policy: and as recently as March 20
Of this year that distinguished lawyer.
Mr.. Secretary Dulles, Said Generally,
it is useful that there should be diplo-
matte intercourse between those who
exercise de fGcto governmental author
ity, and it is well established that rec
ognition does not imply moral ap-
proval."
He went on to say that this had been
the general United States policy, and
was sound general policy. He added,
however, an important reservation.
Where" he said, lit does not serve
our interests we are free to vary from
it," and he then explained why the
Communist government of China could
not now be recognized by the United
States.
There have been other periods in
American history when this realistic.
Jehersonian. de tacto-type view Of
recognition has yielded to the belief
that what Chief Justice Taft called
Legitimacy" was further requirement.
The Union took that view, naturally
enough, under Secretary Seward at the
time Of the Civil War, and later, dur
ing President Wilson'S first term, there
were emphatic reversions to the prin-
ciple of legitimacy. Britain also applied
this principle to some extent during
the 10Th century. For example, in 1870
Britain refused to recognize the gov
ernment of the Third Republic in
IT,: - TIL