Two United Nations Scenarios

THAT annual rite of fall--the struggle over who should represent China in the United Nations--used to be fairly predictable. In past sessions, the drama has swirled around the so-called Albanian resolution, which offers the U.N.'s 127 members a simple choice: Taipei or Peking. This year, with the U.S. not only dropping its opposition to Peking's entry but working for the seating of both governments, the delegates will be able to vote for one or the other --or for both.

This opens the way to an almost infinite number of tactical possibilities. "With good staff work, we might come up with 5,000 scenarios and miss what actually happens," said one U.S. expert. Nonetheless, seasoned U.N. watchers are concentrating on two possible scenarios, depending on how energetic the U.S. is in its effort to preserve Taipei's seat:

HOW TAIPEI MIGHT GET THROWN OUT. If the pro-Peking forces feel strong or judge that Taipei's support is in disarray, Albania might call for "priority consideration" of its resolution, which could bring it to a vote in late September or early October. The Albanian resolution provides for the seating of Peking both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council, as well as the outright expulsion of Taipei.

The key element of all this maneuvering is the General Assembly rule that questions designated "important" require a two-thirds vote, while other questions including "procedural" matters can be settled by a simple majority vote. The question of whether an issue is to be treated as important is settled by a majority vote.

In the past the U.S. has always managed to block the Albanian resolution by rounding up a simple majority on a procedural motion declaring the matter important. But having counted heads last year, the U.S. has concluded that it can no longer depend on enough support for this. In short, the Albanian resolution will no longer be important. In the absence of any other parliamentary maneuver, it is thus possible that a simple majority might vote for the Albanian resolution as it stands. In that case, Taiwan would be out.

HOW TAIPEI MIGHT HANG ON. To prevent Taipei's expulsion, the U.S. could resort to another parliamentary maneuver; it could make a procedural move calling for separate treatment of the Albanian resolution's two parts, splitting the section that requires the seating of Peking from the section that requires the expulsion of Taipei. The logic behind such a move is simple: a majority of the General Assembly wants to seat Peking, but does not necessarily want to see Taipei thrown out.

In this stratagem, admission of Peking would presumably be carried by a simple majority. Then, if the U.S. had its way, expulsion of Taipei would be defined as an important matter requiring a two-thirds vote, which the advocates of Taipei's ouster might fail to muster.

Taking another tack, the U.S. could introduce a separate procedural resolution declaring that Taipei is a U.N. member in good standing--despite uncertainties about what it represents--and thus could not, under the U.N. charter, be ousted without a two-thirds vote. If either version were successful, Taipei would stay in the U.N.--and Peking probably would, as it has promised, refuse to take its newly won seat.

What of China's permanent seat (and veto power) in the Security Council? Even if the U.S. successfully defends Taipei's seat in the General Assembly, Peking is almost certain to be voted into the Security Council, where "China" is one of the five permanent veto-wielding members. The others, including the U.S., are unanimous in their desire to see Peking take its place. Thus they would have to try to "neutralize" Taipei's veto.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.