ment wants to become a member of the United Nations, it must and should accept the principles of the U.N. Charter, including the renunciation of the use of force against its neighbors, and that it has flatly refused to do.

I cannot see how progress toward lasting world peace would be enhanced by downgrading the standards of the U.N. Charter by admission of a government which has publicly denied the U.N. Charter and continues to sponsor worldwide revolution. What is needed is patient insistence that Communist China upgrade its behavior to the level of standards prescribed in the U.N. Charter. If Peking wishes the benefits of membership in the community of nations, it can take the necessary steps to meet those standards.

Dr. Walter Judd recently said, "the United States must not make the fatal mistake of :

"abandoning 750 million Chinese people on the mainland to Mao's cruel tyranny;

"consigning the Republic of China to the same fate;

"throwing our other Asian allies, however reluctantly, into acceptance of Communist China on its terms;

"discrediting the U.S. around the world as a nation unwilling or unable to keep its pledged word;

"turning the U.N. into an agency which our enemies can increasingly use to prevent-not make-real peace in the world."

Mr. President, given Communist China of today, Mao's China, the United States and the United Nations have no other honorable choice but to adhere to a policy of non-admission until such time as Peking stops playing games and begins to prove by deed as well as word that it really wants to be a responsible member of the international community of nations.

I commend President Nixon and previous presidents who have attempted to open lines of communications with mainland China, but in our own self-interests we should not deceive ourselves into believing that a wolf is a sheep or a dragon a butterfly simply because of ping-pong exchanges.

BIOGRAPHY: DR. DAVID N. ROWE

Doctor David N. Rowe, Professor of Political Science at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, was born in Nanking, China, October 21, 1905. He graduated from Princeton in 1927 with a Bachelor of Arts Degree, took his Masters at the University of Southern California and Doctorate from the University of Chicago. Professor Rowe did two years post doctoral work at Harvard from 1935 to 1937. He has a distinguished career in Far Eastern affairs in the academic community and government service. He is the author of numerous publications, including, China Among the Powers, China, an Area Manual, and Modern China, A Brief History. Dr. Rowe is co-editor of the 1965 index to the Soviet Plot in China and the author of various articles on Far Eastern affairs.

He was a member of the International Secretariat of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1945, is a member of the American Political Science Association and various other organizations and societies. He is a Colonel in the United States Army Reserve.

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, any statement that Dr. Rowe would make, I would like to have at this time and, of course, we will try to answer any questions that you and Senator Aiken may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you prefer he speak before we ask questions? Senator DOMINICK. No, sir; that is entirely all right as long as if I get into deep water I ask for some help from the academic community. The CHAIRMAN. I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted Dr. Rowe to make a statement of his own at this time.

Senator DOMINICK. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very forthright statement, Senator Dominick.

SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED TO REPORT OF PRESIDENT'S U.N. COMMISSION

You did mention the report of the President's Commission on the United Nations, a Commission, I believe, of some 50 members of which I was one and, I think, Senator Aiken was one, on this question of membership. I did just for the record, file a separate statement involving three different aspects, the peacekeeping capabilities and membership on which I will read the following:

In essence the section of the Report dealing with membership calls for a twoChina policy and, by implication and in due course, for a two-Germany, twoKorean and two-Vietnam policy. This recommendation is based on the proposition that "all firmly established governments should be included in the UN system." While I subscribe in general to that proposition, I believe the Commission might have dealt more forthrightly with some additional considerations that have a bearing on membership. For example, reference to the Chinese Nationalist Government (Taiwan) states that it controls "a larger population than twothirds of all present UN members."

That was a quote.

There is no mention that the ratio of population is about two million Chinese to 12 million Taiwanese-the latter group being rather under-represented in the national government and some, at least, moving strongly toward independence. Moreover, must one not consider that the population of mainland China is over 700 million in contrast with some 14 million on Taiwan? In short, the concept that all "firmly established governments should be included in the U.N. system" may in some instances require accommodation to other principles such as, for example, the greatest good for the greatest number.

ENTITLEMENT TO CHINA SEAT IN U.N.

I thought that should be in the record. The real question of these various resolutions, not Mr. Church's, but I think most of the others, is not whether to create a new seat, but who represents and who is entitled to the seat already in the United Nations, which is called China in both cases, but is now represented by the Government of Mr. Chiang Kai-shek on Taiwan. I need not recall the various technical aspects of it.

I would sum up the views of witnesses so far, and I think, including the sponsors, that none of them wish to expel Taiwan; I do not believe they do. They are taking the position that the time has come for the People's Republic to be seated in the seat which is now occupied by Taiwan, and there are various suggestions that if there is any possibility of retaining Taiwan as Taiwan, and giving it a seat, this should be done.

It is your view, I take it, however, that even though that could be done, you do not think it is timely to seat the People's Republic of China in the seat now occupied in the U.N. This is a procedure of simply recognizing that the Government of Peking is the one entitled to the seat; is that not correct?

Senator DOMINICK. I think, Mr. Chairman, there are a group of procedural problems that are involved in your question. First of all, with respect to your independent statement I had also read that, and I am not sure about the 2 million-12 million because it is my understanding that most of the Taiwanese were originally Chinese, but skipping that point for the moment, I do not see how these resolutions add anything to it because neither the People's Republic of China nor the

Republic of China are willing to settle on a two-China policy, neither one of them, and as long as they will not engage in that type of negotiation, I do not see how the resolutions which we are bringing up at this point, and which are, in my opinion, in opposition to the Lodge report, because inevitably it would mean the expulsion or eviction of the membership of the Republic of China, I just do not see how they add anything except heat to the argument.

This is really a difficult problem because the Republic of China is mentioned as a charter member by name. They are the permanent member of the Security Council. If you suddenly put in a new government to replace them, you are by direction and by total action of the U.N. body evicting that particular government which is mentioned in the charter.

Now, in order to do that, the only way you can evict any government or whatever it may be from the United Nations is, first of all, by a recommendation of the Security Council, which you could never get because it will be vetoed by the Republic of China to start with and, hopefully, would be vetoed by us and, secondly, you have to have a twothirds vote after recommendation by the Security Council. You are not going to get the recommendation, and I strongly believe that you would never get the two-thirds vote.

So, these resolutions, as I see it, do not attack those problems at all. Maybe Dr. Rowe would like to comment on your question, if that would be all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

ARTICLE 23 IN CHARTER OF UNITED NATIONS

Dr. Rowe. My comment would start by pointing out what is clear in the charter of the U.N. under article 23, in which it states. "The Security Council shall consist of 11 members of the United Nations." Then it proceeds in the next sentence to name the Republic of China. Now, the Republic of China is not the name of a state, it is the name of a government. The Republic of China holds the permanent seat in the Security Council under article 23, and if the Republic of China is no longer to hold such seat it seems obvious that the charter has to be amended to this effect. You cannot amend the charter simply by a resolution approved by the Security Council and then voted into effect by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. It takes a great deal more than this to amend the charter of the United Nations, and that is only the first step that is involved in any question of changing the membership of the Security Council as stated under article 23.

It seems to me that we have to get away from this notion that what we have is a membership designated for China with a seat in the Security Council for China and a seat in the Assembly for China, because it is obvious from article 23 that no such thing is that case.

PROCEDURAL POINT IS OF REPRESENTATION, NOT MEMBERSHIP

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is the very question that is before the United Nations. The procedural point which Professor Cohen, who was here on Friday, observed is the question of representation, not membership. China has a seat. Which government represents China?

I do not know where you draw the line about this. It was not allocated to Mr. Chiang Kai-shek personally, was it?

Dr. Rowe. It was allocated to the Republic of China, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. The question of what is the Republic of China. Dr. Rowe. It is the government on Taiwan recognized by the U.S. Government and many other governments.

The CHAIRMAN. At the time of the formation of the U.N. I do not believe there was any such government on Taiwan, was there?

Dr. Rowe. Oh, yes, sir; because the government on Taiwan was legally that of the Government of the Republic of China in spite of the fact that under the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895, following the Sino-Japanese war, the Japanese controlled the island as they took it over from China as a prize of war. It is well known, of course, that that treaty and all other treaties between China and Japan were expunged from the record by the treaty entered into between Japan and the Republic of China by which they settled their war after the war was over, and that by virtue of the expunging of the Treaty of Shimonoseki from the record, the island of Taiwan and surrounding islands reverted again to the government which was recognized at that time, namely, the Republic of China.

The CHAIRMAN. What I point out, the point I was trying to make, Dr. Rowe, was that the U.N. came into being, I believe, in 1945, was it not?

Dr. Rowe. That is correct. The conference was held in San Francisco in the spring of 1945.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1945. In 1945 Chiang Kai-shek was not on Taiwan.

Dr. Rowe. The Japanese were on Taiwan.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. The Government of China was at Peking in 1945, and

Dr. Rowe. The government-pardon me, the Government of China was in Chungking at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. In Chungking. Chungking, it was not on Taiwan, is the point I wanted to make. There was a civil war going on in China. As a matter of fact, the Japanese had been in occupation of much of the country up until the end of the war. But the point raised is who represents China in the U.N. That is the procedural question, which it has been all along, has it not, and by various devices when we had made it an important question, it needed two-thirds of the General Assembly to get to the point of admission-recognition of a particular government, they always lost, that is they never were able to get twothirds, is that not correct?

Dr. Rowe. It is correct that the Assembly did two things every single time.

One, they voted by a majority to make it an important question and, two, they voted without a two-thirds majority that they would not accede to the proposals have to do with the change in representation. But my point, Senator, is simply this, that no such vote by the General Assembly has anything to do with the abrogation or the amendment of article 23 of the United Nations Charter, under the terms of which explicitly the Republic of China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and no vote by the Assembly can influence

that in any way, shape or form. It takes an amendment to the charter to do that.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON CHINA SEAT ENTITLEMENT

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your view that the General Assembly is not authorized to vote upon this question of which is the legitimate government or people entitled to the seat allocated to China, that it has to be upon recommendation of the Security Council?

Dr. Rowe. Sir, in order to answer that question, I would have to make the assumption which, if I am correct you are making, which is that there is a seat in the United Nations some place allocated to China. I do not find that to be the case in the Security Council where the allocation is not made to China but to the Republic of China and that is the title of a government which had jurisdiction over a sufficiently large part of Chinese territory at the time the United Nations was set up to justify this allocation, among other things, among other reasons, and that, to make my point again, in order to change that situation in the Security Council you will have to get an amendment of the U.N. Charter. I think there is no question. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Aiken.

OBSERVANCE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS OF U.N.

Senator AIKEN. I believe that the Republic of China or any other country that wants to try that wants to become a member of the U.N. As I understand it, China has been unwilling to do that up to this time. However, many of the members of the United Nations as of now have not observed those rules and regulations very rigidly.

CONTROL OF TAIWAN GOVERNMENT

Do you believe that the Government of Taiwan is a popular government today, that the people of that country control that government? Senator DOMINICK. I was just going to say this: I have been there on several occasions. I do happen to know what their economic condition on Taiwan is and it is far superior on a per capita basis to almost any country over there with the exception of Japan. I would say that they are moving rapidly on an economic basis and on political freedom-far more than anything that can be found under the Communist government on the mainland.

Senator AIKEN. They are more prosperous than they have ever been. So far as I know, the Government of Taiwan so far has cooperated very well with the United States.

Senator DOMINICK. Yes, sir.

Senator AIKEN. However, I have had reports from the Taiwanese that they feel that they, the 12 million Taiwanese, are pretty much under military government control by the 2 million Chinese or a certain number of Chinese. I was wondering if that is our idea of a democratic government.

Senator DOMINICK. I do not think that we can have necessarily a fulcrum of democratic government in the United Nations to any extent, Senator.

Senator AIKEN. Yes.