United Nations: Mao on the Threshold

For all the high ideals in the Charter, the United Nations is a very down-to-earth and pragmatic organization, which for the most part deals with hard political realities rather than with sweet reason or ideal aspirations. The opportunities for inspirational leadership or crusading are exceedingly rare.

SO said U.N. Secretary-General U Thant last week as he prepared to vacate the post he has held since 1961, a job that the U.N.'s first Secretary-General, Trygve Lie, once characterized as "the most impossible in the world." In an ordinary year, the selection of a new Secretary-General would overshadow most other matters on the agenda of the General Assembly. Ten years ago, in fact, that very issue brought the U.N. to the brink of a breakup when the Soviet Union tried to create an unwieldy three-man directorate in order to keep the post from falling into the hands of another activist in the mold of the late Dag Hammarskjold.

Historic Matter. The selection of a new Secretary-General will indeed be an important topic on the agenda, along with such perennial problems as the Middle East and such current troubles as the civil war in Pakistan. But when the 26th session of the General Assembly convenes in New York this week, under the presidency of Indonesia's Adam Malik, the delegates will be preoccupied with an even more historic matter: the admission of Mao Tse-tung's China to the United Nations.

It is now regarded as certain that the Peking government will be admitted this fall, 22 years after the Communist takeover on the mainland. Nor is there any doubt that the Communist government will immediately be granted China's permanent seat on the 15-seat Security Council; that, too, became a virtual certainty when the U.S. went on record last week as supporting such a move. The remaining question is whether, in the weeks to come, the U.S. will be able to prevent the U.N. from altogether expelling Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Chinese regime.

Important Question. Washington's current policy, as outlined last month by Secretary of State William Rogers, is a one-China, one-Taiwan approach. The U.S. will support the admission of Peking without the expulsion of Taipei from the General Assembly. That stand involves harrowing legal problems. According to the U.N. Charter, the admission and expulsion of members must be recommended to the General Assembly by the Security Council. If Peking is allowed to take over China's Security Council seat, it is certain to oppose any plan to retain Taipei's U.N. membership, since it argues--as does Chiang's regime--that the island is not a separate country but a part of China.

The U.S. tactic nonetheless is to argue that the matter of Taipei's expulsion is an "important question" calling for a two-thirds vote of the 127-member Assembly rather than a simple majority. But it is having great difficulty lining up support for this position, despite such efforts as U.N. Ambassador George Bush's meeting last week with U.N. envoys from 35 member states. As a British diplomat explained, "We don't question U.S. intentions on this matter, but the practical effect of the U.S. resolution would be to keep Peking out because Peking will not come in while Taiwan is here. We regret that Taiwan would have to be expelled, but China's presence here is more important."

Accordingly, both Britain and France are expected to support the Albanian resolution, co-sponsored by 17 members, that calls for the admission of Peking as China's representative and the expulsion of Taipei. The U.S. had been counting on Japan to co-sponsor its resolution. Two weeks ago, however, the Japanese told Washington that they were having second thoughts, even though they still planned to vote for the resolution. In a sharp exchange during two days of meetings in Washington, Secretary Rogers declared to Japanese Foreign Minister Takeo Fukuda: "I see your position as totally illogical." Replied Fukuda: "Politics has its own logic." Premier Eisaku Sato's government was stunned by the announcement of Nixon's trip to Peking and by his economic policy, and those twin shocks have served to reinforce the arguments of Sato's critics that Japan should have a foreign policy more independent of the U.S. Even Sato's own Liberal Democratic Party is sharply divided over whether Tokyo should move immediately toward closer relations with Peking.

Without Japan's complete support, other Asian states were reluctant to support Taipei. "Many countries, particularly those on the periphery of China," said a U.N. delegate from Southeast Asia, "are wondering if they should offend China by supporting the American proposal when it's not clear how far the U.S. itself is going to stick its neck out." Even Australia and New Zealand refused to co-sponsor the U.S. resolution, and at week's end the dismal list of co-sponsors included only the Philippines, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Haiti, Honduras and Swaziland. The plain fact is that unless the Japanese government changes its mind following a Cabinet meeting this week, Taipei will almost certainly be expelled when the issue reaches the blue-and-gold chamber of the General Assembly, probably no sooner than mid-October. An early test of prevailing sentiment is set for this week when the 25-member General Committee, which determines the agenda, decides whether to give priority to the U.S. or the Albanian resolutions.

Jewish Mother. If the China problem is devilishly difficult, so is the selection of a successor to U Thant. Ill, frustrated and weary, the 62-year-old Secretary-General finally convinced his colleagues only in recent weeks that he had no intention of remaining in office after his second five-year term expires Dec. 31.

There is no shortage of applicants for the $65,000-a-year job. Foremost among these is Finland's Ambassador to the U.N., Max Jakobson, 48, who has won the backing of the other Scandinavian states. His chief asset is also a liability: an able man and an activist, he might strike the Soviets as being a bit too much like the late Dag Hammarskjold, whom the Russians never forgave for inspiring the U.N.'s military operation in the Congo. Jakobson has an additional handicap: his mother was Jewish, a fact that might provoke opposition from Arab states and perhaps even their Soviet allies.

If Jakobson should be ruled out, a likely alternative might be Gunnar Jarring, 63, Sweden's Ambassador to Moscow and the U.N.'s Middle East negotiator. Jarring, however, is under heavy fire at home at the moment for his shabby treatment of Soviet Writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn. After Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature last year, much to the annoyance of Soviet leaders, Jarring refused to hold an award ceremony at the Swedish embassy in Moscow lest it offend the Soviet Union. The incident was widely criticized in the West as well as in Sweden, where one newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbhulet, accused the government of "pitiful toadying" to the Kremlin.

Apart from Jakobson and Jarring, there are four other candidates for the Secretary-Generalship so far: Ceylon's U.N. Ambassador, Hamilton Amerasinghe; Austria's U.N. Ambassador, Kurt Waldheim; Ethiopia's former U.N. Ambassador, Endalkachew Makonnen; and Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (and a half brother of the late Aly Khan). But, as is so often the case in U.N. politics, the strongest contenders appeared to be the Scandinavians. It seemed likely that if the Russians should find Jakobson too assertive, they could hardly object to Jarring, who despite his considerable diplomatic skill is also inoffensively bland.

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