I must disagree with the
interpretation given by Mr. Kim
Hatcher (letter, Nov. 5) to the
consequences and substance of the
recent General Assembly vote on
the question of China's
representation in the United
Nation.
The UN decision reflected its
judgement on three issues in the
dispute:
(a)that this was not a matter of
United Nations admission or
expulsion or of an important
question in that sense requiring a
two-thirds majority vote;
(b)that it was a question of the
rival claims of two regimes: the
Nationalists (the former Chinese
government) and the Communists
(the actual Chinese government) to
representation of China in the
United Nations and that
accordingly, the actual Communist
Chinese government should be
China's spokesman in UN organs;
(c)that the status of Taiwan
(which under the United States
proposal to seat both the
Nationalists and the Communists
would be judged "de facto"
independent of the mainland) was
not to be determined arbitrarily by
the General Assembly, especially
under terms unacceptable to both
sides, but was to be solved by the
Chinese people and the two rival
regimes themselves.
Since the General Assembly
vote (of 76 to 35-the vote of
59-55 that Mr. Hatcher refers to
concerned a procedural motion to
make China's UN representation an
issue requiring a two-thirds
majority vote) was based on this
criteria and not according to Mr.
Hatcher's erroneous interpretations,
his complaints concerning the
Soviets triple representation hardly
seem relevant to this discussion.
What is important is that the
United Nations Organization, far
from being "guilty of
compromising its honor, and
perhaps its future" as Mr. Hatcher
maintains, has on the contrary,
enhanced its virtue, credibility and
future prospects by belatedly
dismissing the pretensions of the
Nationalists and restoring the
rightful and necessary participation
of the Peoples Republic of China.
