HC Deb 19 December 1966 vol 738 cc977-8
12. Mr. Gwilym Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what study he has made of the letter from the Eastern Regional Officer of the United Nations Association on the admission of Mainland China to the United Nations; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. George Brown

I have carefully studied the points raised in this letter. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the very full reply which I have sent.

Mr. Roberts

Would it not be a major contribution to world harmony if America supported China's admission to the United Nations, and will my right hon. Friend undertake to make yet another appeal to the Americans to wake up to the fact that it is now 1966 and not 1946?

Mr. Brown

My hon. Friend must recognise from what happened at the meeting this year that the thing goes a good deal wider now than just the United States. The vote this year was altogether different from last year, which suggests that a lot of other people need to have this explained to them, too.

Following is the reply:

Foreign Office,

30 November, 1966.

Thank you for your letter of 22 November about Chinese representation at the United Nations.

I hope that the speeches I made in Brighton and New York will leave no doubt in any- body's mind that Her Majesty's Government believe it to be a matter of great importance that the Chinese People's Republic should be seated in the United Nations, and that I am doing everything I can to bring this about. I am firmly convinced that the United Nations cannot be truly effective without universal membership. This means that Peking too must be represented, even though we often find ourselves in disagreement with her policies and know perfectly well that she will be hard to live with. It is not of course certain that she would take the seat even if voted in.

We have voted in favour of Peking since the question was first put in its present form in 1961: and we shall continue to do so. I can see the arguments for saying that this is only a procedural matter, as your Committee believe. On the other hand, the balance of argument seems to me to lead to the conclusion that it is hard to say that this is not an important question. I am strengthened in this view by the evidence from the last vote that opinions in the United Nations are sharply divided on this matter. The best solution, I am sure, would be to convince the large majority of members of the United Nations of the wisdom of voting in favour of seating Peking. There would then be a decisive vote and no one could later challenge it. This must be our objective and this is what we are working for during the present debate.

(Signed) (GEORGE BROWN.)

B. Hembry, Esq.,

Regional Officer,

U.N. Association,

Eastern Regional Council,

15 Bridge Street,

Cambridge.