Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:31:48.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada and the Two-China Formula at the United Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Poeliu Dai
Poeliu Dai*
Affiliation:
International Education, State University College, Potsdam, New York
Get access

Extract

The canadian plan suggested to the 21st session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1966 for re-allocating China's seat in the world Organization was designed to bring about a breakthrough in resolving a question of great complexity that has beset that Organization for some 17 years. It has attracted world-wide attention and evoked various comments by both practitioners and students of international politics.

Before analyzing the contents and denoting the legal and political implications of the plan, it is necessary to review briefly the background and the discussions of the question of China's representation at the 21st General Assembly.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 5 , 1967 , pp. 217 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For texts of the draft resolutions, see A/L 494; A/L 496; & A/L 500.

2 For votes on the three resolutions, see United Nations General Assembly, 21st Session, Provisional Verbatim Record, November 29, 1966, A/PV 1481, at 46–62.

3 Statement by the United States representative, A/PV 1471, at 12.

4 Statement by the representative of France, A/PV 1473, at 18.

5 For example, see A/PV 1471, at 39–40.

6 The representative of Afghanistan, for example, stressed the concept of universality in the following remarks: “If the United Nations is effectively to function and discharge its responsibilities for the peacful resolution of conflict, as outlined in the Charter, as if it is to serve as a focal point for efforts to settle disputes, reduce tension, and eliminate the conditions which are conducive to war and insecurity, then its representations and ranks should be as wide as possible. In a constantly changing world and in an atmosphere of a less favorable political situation, it is even more imperative to extend and widen the spectrum of beliefs and ideas in our midst.” A/PV 1473, at 21. Also statement by the representative of Albania, A/PV 1471, at 26–27.

7 Statement of Guinea, A/PV 1470, at 62.

8 Statement of France, A/PV 1473, at 16.

9 Statement of Cambodia, A/PV 1470, at 18.

10 Guinea also argued that “it is the United Nations that suffers far more because of the absence of China rather than China because of its absence from the United Nations.” A/PV 1470, at 67. See also Statement by Burma, A/PV 1472, at 4–5.

11 Emphasis was laid on this point by Guinea, A/PV 1470, at 62–65, and by Albania A/PV 1471, at 26–27.

12 During the debate, the representative of Thailand took strong exception to the Albanian resolution for the expulsion of Taipei, on the ground that “according to Art. 6 of the Charter, a member state can be expelled only if it has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter” and that “‘it is only upon the recommendation of the Security Council’ that such a drastic step can be taken.” Other delegations, for example, Ceylon, however, held the view that the Assembly was not discussing the admission of a state as a new member, but merely the recognition of the accredited representatives of a state which was already a member. The invocation of Article 6 was therefore irrelevant. A/PV 1476, at 28–30.

13 Statements of Canada and Ireland, Dept. of Ext. Aff. Statements and Speeches, No. 66/47 and A/PV 1479, at 2–5.

14 Statement of Malaysia, A/PV 1479, at 78.

15 Statement of Japan, A/PV 1479, at 11.

16 Ibid.

17 Statements of Japan and Central African Republic, A/PV 1479, at 12; and A/PV 147 7, at 36 respectively.

18 Chen Yi’s demands included the expulsion of Taipei from the United Nations; the cancellation of the General Assembly resolution condemning Peking as an aggressor in the Korean conflict; and the complete reorganization of the United Nations including the purging of “all imperialis puppets.” After the defeat of the Albanian Resolution in 1966, an editorial of the People’s Daily of December 2, 1966 stated that “the fundamental question now, as it has been in the past, is one of freeing the United Nations from the control of the United States and its collaborators, thoroughly reorganizing it and completely rectifying all the mistakes it has committed.” For texts, see Peking Review, October 8, 1965 and December 9, 1966.

19 Statement of Belgium, A/PV 1477, at 8.

20 Statement by Right Honourable L. B. Pearson, H. C. Deb. (Can.), November 24, 1966, at 10295.

21 Dept. of Ext. Aff. Statements and Speeches, No. 66/47.

22 See supra note 20.

23 H. C. Deb. (Can.), December 6, 1966, at 10752.

24 See supra note 20, at 10296.

25 H. C. Deb. (Can.) November 30, 1966, at 10553.

26 Statement of the Philippines, A/PV 1478, at 92.

27 Statement of Hungary, A/PV 1477, at 16.

28 Statement of Albania, A/PV 1471, at 38.

29 American Consulate General, Hongkong, Survey of China Mainland Press, No. 3830, November 30, 1966, at 35–36.

30 Statement of China, A/PV 1481, at 38–40.

31 United Nations General Assembly, Verbatim Record, December 8, 1964, 3:30 p.m., A/PV 1295, at 3–4.

32 Studies prepared at the request of the Committee on For, Rei. of U.S. Senate by Conlon Associates Ltd., 86th Congress, istSes., November 1, 1959, at 153–54.

33 United Nations Association of the U.S., China, the United Nations, and United States Policy, a Report of a National Policy Panel, 1966. Similar views have been expressed by Blum, Robert and Doak Barnett , A. in The United States and China in World Affairs 238–39 Google Scholar and by Fairbank, John K., the latter urging that “we should never support ‘two Chinas’ which is an affront to any patriot, but should demand ‘dual representation’ to keep our Taiwan ally in the Assembly”: New York Times, May 20, 1967.Google Scholar

34 Security Council, Official Record, 190th Meeting, August 21, 1947, A/350.

35 See notes verbales of March 7, 1958, of UN Secretary-General to President of Security Council transmitting notification of U.A.R., A/3817 and S/3976. For Syria’s resumption of membership, see A/4913 and A/4914.

36 For dissolution of Federation of Mali, see S/4470 and Addm. For action of Security Council and General Assembly on the two states’ admission, see S/4543. S/4544, and A/4384.

37 For Tanganyika, see S/5017 and S/5024 and General Assembly Res. 1667 (XVI) adopted on December 14, 1961. For Zanzibar, see S/5478, S/5486 and General Assembly Res. 1975 (XVIII) adopted on December 16, 1961. Also Yearbook of United Nations, 1964, at 580.

38 For action of Security Council of September 20, 1965, see S/6696; For Assembly Action, see Res. 2010 (XX) adopted September 21, 1965.

39 See Articles 21, 30, and 72 of the Charter.

40 McDougal, Myres S. and Goodman, Richard M., “Chinese Participation in the United Nations,” (1966) 60 Am. J. Int’l. L. 671–727 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Statement by representative of the United Kingdom, A/PV 1480, at 42.

42 Statement by representative of France, A/PV 1473, at 17.

43 See supra note 40.

44 See United Nations, Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, 1, at 175–76 (1955).