IO Files: US/A/M(Chr)/128
Minutes of the Thirty-fourth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, New York, November 25, 1949, 9 a. m.
[Here follow list of names of persons (43) present and discussion of the situation regarding the proposed Chinese resolution condemning Soviet violations of the Sino-Soviet treaty of August 14, 1945; see pages 144 ff.]
[Page 290]The Delegation then turned to the question of a possible hearing of the Chinese Communists. Mr. Allen stated that it was quite probable that the Committee would be confronted by the question whether any representatives of the Chinese Communists should be heard in connection with its consideration of the Chinese case. The Soviet Delegation had already denounced the present Chinese Delegation. If the question arose as an effort on behalf of the Communists to claim the seat of the present Chinese Delegation, the question would be handled by the Credentials Committee. We had been advised that if this particular question were raised in the First Committee, the chairman would rule that the matter would have to be referred to the Credentials Committee for consideration and report to the plenary. The problem might also arise in another form by a request that the representatives of the Chinese Communist regime be heard by the Committee as parties in interest.
The recommended position in this case was set forth in the position paper before the Delegation (US/A/C.1/1806). Mr. Allen summarized the recommendations in the paper. The request for a hearing should be denied and opposed if it was based on the argument that the Chinese Communists would represent “the Government of China.” In this case, the basis would be that China was already represented by a duly accredited delegation. If the Chinese Communists should request a hearing to present information particularly within their knowledge, the situation would be somewhat more difficult. The United States position in this case should depend upon the nature of the evidence which they claimed to be able to give and upon the sentiment of other Delegations for or against such a hearing. It might also be possible to deny a hearing to the Communists on the ground that the evidence which they sought to offer was not pertinent to the type of resolution which the Assembly was considering. This might be the case, for example, as regards alleged Soviet aid to the communists. If the General Assembly should decide to hear the Chinese Communists, certain conditions should be set up. They should in particular be limited to statements regarding facts within their knowledge; they should be available for questions, but should not be permitted to take a part in the debate; and if possible, their hearing should be by a subcommittee.
Ambassador Austin asked under what Article of the Charter could it be proposed that people having special knowledge of the facts of the case should be called in. Mr. Popper indicated that the Charter was silent on this point, but noted that the Assembly had called in such individuals in past cases, such as Palestine and the Italian Colonies. [Page 291] Ambassador Austin considered that Article 35 of the Charter touched upon such hearings. He thought another problem which would have to be faced would be a claim by the Chinese Communists that they represented a state. Mr. Hickerson thought it would be difficult to establish that case since it could clearly now be said that the Communists were simply a rival faction claiming to be the Government.
The Delegation approved the recommendations in the position paper without further discussion.1
[Here follows discussion of another subject.]
- Further developments in the Chinese representation question are described in vol. ix, pp. 256–257 and 258–260.↩