CHINA AND THE UNITED NATIONS (Hansard, 5 February 1959)

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, the State of China has been a member of the United Nations since it was founded and is a permanent member of the Security Council by virtue of Article 23 of the Charter. The difference of opinion among members of the United Nations concerns who now represents China and who should occupy the Chinese seat. This question of Chinese representation has been raised at every session of the Assembly since the Fifth Session in 1950. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that to press the issue in face of the deep divisions of opinion would do more harm than good and they have accordingly voted in favour of postponing consideration of the question for the time being.
The membership criteria of the various subsidiary organs differs. Some provide for membership by all members of the United Nations. In others the membership qualification is geographical. In such cases China as a state is automatically a member. For organs to which members are elected, election is by secret ballot.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, to take an example, on the last part of the noble Earl's Answer, why was it that in the Maritime Conference in London the other day we voted, I understand, against the inclusion of the Peking Government, although they have a coastline of thousands of miles?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I do not know to which subsidiary organ of the United Nations that would refer.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, as I have put a Question down on the Paper specifically asking what action we nave taken in the matter, not of membership of the United Nations but of the participation of the Peking Government in these subsidiary organisations, why is it that the noble Earl does not know what the I.M.C.O., recently set up, represents?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I do not think that it is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
Does the noble Earl say it is or is not a subsidiary organisation?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, seeing that Her Majesty's Government recognised the Peking Government as the Government of China some eight years ago, it is not time that we dropped the opportunist policy in this matter and supported her entry to the seat to which she is entitled in the United Nations?

LORD REA
My Lords, before the noble Earl answers, might I ask whether Her Majesty's Government regard the Chinese seat in the United Nations as empty, or doubly occupied?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
No, it is occupied by the Chinese Nationalist Government, which is not now recognised by Great Britain; but the question of which Government should be recognised is one which deeply and strongly divides the United Nations and also, incidentally, the Commonwealth. Her Majesty's Government are of the view that to take the action suggested would do more harm than good by dividing seriously, and possibly injuring, the United Nations.

§ LORD HENDERSON
My Lords, in view of the fact that we and other nations do not recognise Formosa as part of China, how can we justify recognising the emigré Government in Formosa as the Government of China? It seems to me quite an illogical position. And as this country has recognised the Peking Government, why do we not press for its entry into the United Nations, regardless of what other nations do?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, we do not recognise the Nationalist Government in Formosa.

§ LORD HENDERSON
My Lords, I said the Government of China—the Peking Government.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, we do recognise the Peking Government, but we are in a minority in the United Nations on this subject. The majority opinion is against us.

§ LORD HENDERSON
But the issue has, as I understand it, never been brought to a vote. All we are told is that other nations will not agree, and so we do not press for what we have already recognised, the entry of Communist China into the United Nations. Surely it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government when this issue comes up to press for the Communist Government to be recognised and admitted to the United Nations.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I do not think it is our responsibility to do so if we think it would do more harm than good, possibly by causing the breakup of the United Nations.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, is it not the recognised fact in the United Nations Organisation that there are many countries who have recognised the Government of China but do not wish to offend the United States of America? The United States are fairly unique (I will riot say completely unique) in withholding any recognition at all to the Chinese Government. On this matter, therefore, ought not the British Government's action to be taken, not only in accordance with the facts, but in accordance with the principles that we have hitherto always followed in the case of nations to whom we give de jure recognition?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
That seems to me to be a matter of opinion which might well be debated, but it is hardly appropriate to be discussed by question and answer.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, would it be fair to say that the great authorities in the Conservative Party bitterly resented the recognition of the Peking Government and, now that it is recognised, are forcing a policy which really does not recognise that Government at all?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, that question seems to be, if I may say so, purely rhetorical.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, far from it. I asked the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that authoritative opinion in the Conservative Party was voiced, within weeks of the recognition of China, saying that the step was a disaster?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, what the noble Viscount wants to know is whether it is a fact. The answer is, No.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, I will send a copy to the noble Earl of the letter written by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Order, order!

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, may I have the noble Earl's permission to send him a copy of a letter written by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, within a week or so of the recognition of China, bitterly denouncing that act. I am saying that the policy of the Conservative Government would be effectively to de-recognise the Peking Government.

§ LORD BIRDWOOD
My Lords, could I ask a question of the noble Viscount who has just spoken? That is, would he—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Order, Order!

§ LORD BIRDWOOD
Could I ask the noble Earl who replies for the Government a question to this effect? Would he not think that at this particular juncture in world affairs it is essential that we should take no step that could jeopardise our friendship with the United States?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
My Lords, should we not consider the harm which is done to our prestige in Asia so long as we continue the course we are taking?

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl a question which has nothing to do with the merits but is from a purely practical point of view? As we do not recognise the Formosa Government, the Nationalist Government, what does our representative do on the Security Council? Does he pretend that the representative is not there?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, no. The representative of China on the Security Council by the decision of the United Nations is the representative of the Formosa Government. The fact that we diplomatically recognise the Peking Government does not make any difference to the constitution of the United Nations.

§ LORD OGMORE
With great respect, is not the noble Earl wrong, because in the Charter the seat is to be held by China? The Charter definitely says China, and therefore we must—this seems to me the odd problem that we arrive at—now try to recognise a representative of a Government whom we do not recognise as sitting for a country that we do recognise.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)
My Lords, this is Question Time and the House will probably agree that it would be wrong for the House to allow Question Time to be used as a vehicle for carrying on a debate on an important issue of foreign affairs. It is to the advantage neither of the House nor, I believe, of the country. I shall ask the House to support me in saying that this question has been very thoroughly ventilated, and if noble Lords, quite legitimately, wish to put forward their various arguments by a different course they should do so by the ordinary way of debate.