170 ITEMS ASSEMBLY"S GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS FOR INCLUSION ON FIFTY-FOURTH SESSION AGENDA

Press Release
GA/9593

170 ITEMS ASSEMBLY’S GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS FOR INCLUSION ON FIFTY-FOURTH SESSION AGENDA

The General Committee, in two meetings held today, recommended 170 items for inclusion on the General Assembly’s agenda for its fifty-fourth session and allocated them among the six Main Committees and the plenary.

Among the six new items recommended for inclusion on the agenda were those on the observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in Assembly, commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, cooperation between the United Nations and the preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, granting of observer status in the Assembly for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization; armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and financing of United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET).

As there was no consensus on the issue, the Committee decided not to recommend inclusion of a proposed item on the “need to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental right of its 22 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respected”. That decision was taken after a debate involving 68 speakers.

The Committee also decided to defer consideration of inclusion of the proposed item on observer status for the International Institute for democracy and electoral assistance to a later date. It also recommended that the inclusion of the item on the Question of Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India be deferred until the next session of the General Assembly, and that the item be inscribed in the provisional agenda for the fifty-fifth session.

Speaking on the issue related to the Republic of China on Taiwan, the representative of China said that in the past six years, a small number of countries had raised the issue of so-called Taiwan’s participation at the United Nations in an attempt to create “two Chinas” at the Organization. Such an illegal act was an open challenge to the “one China” principle widely recognized by the international community, and a severe violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter. It had seriously infringed upon China’s sovereignty and grossly interfered in its internal affairs. His country strongly opposed the inclusion of the item regarding Taiwan on the agenda of the current session of the Assembly. He hoped that the General Committee would continue to uphold justice, safeguard the purposes and principles of the Charter, Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) and norms of international law, and support the position of the Chinese delegation.

Fifty-fourth General Assembly - 1a - Press Release GA/9593 General Committee 15 September 1999 1st and 2nd Meetings (AM & PM)

The representative of the Gambia said the time was long overdue to recognize mistakes and correct them. Both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan had defined territories and separate diplomatic relations with other States. Why then should the United Nations perpetuate discrimination of one against the other. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) was fundamentally defective. It had failed woefully on the issue of the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It had been founded during the cold war era, which was now long gone. “Are we going to continue living in the past”? he asked, or takes the opportunity to correct a politically misguided effort.

Many speakers in support of the item’s inclusion cited the Republic of China on Taiwan’s attributes of statehood, such as its major global economy, its democratic government, its diplomatic relations with many countries and its aid to developing countries. Others, speaking against the proposal referred to the issue as an internal matter for the Government of China and, as basically, one of territorial integrity.

Statements on the proposed item were also made by the representatives of Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Liberia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Chad, Swaziland, Sri Lanka, Monaco, Kazakhstan, Solomon Islands, Nicaragua, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sudan, Djibouti, Salvador, Kuwait, Syria, Mongolia, Malawi, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Italy, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya, Cote d’Ivoire, Brazil, Iraq, Belize, Russian Federation, Belarus, Argentina, Seychelles, Cyprus, Guyana, South Africa, Congo, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, France, Tajikistan, Spain, Lesotho, Cuba, Zambia, Suriname, Saint Lucia, Afghanistan, Dominica, Kenya, United States, Tunisia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Republic of Tanzania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Chile, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, United Kingdom and Pakistan.

The representatives of the Seychelles, Monaco, Thailand, France, Sweden, Italy, Russian Federation, Cuba, Chile, China, Iraq, Algeria, Rwanda, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Namibia and Bolivia also spoke on other items today.

The recess date for the Assembly’s current session was set for 14 December and the closing date on 5 September 2000. The Committee also recommended the following closing dates for the Main Committees: First (Disarmament and International Security), Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization), and Sixth (Legal) Committees – 19 November; Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) – 22 November; Second Committee (Economic and Financial) – 26 November; and Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) – 10 December. However, the Committee did recommend that the Assembly review its decision taken last year establishing a fixed opening and closing date for General Assembly sessions.

Finally, the Committee recommended that the Assembly authorize the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to meet during the main part of the Assembly’s current session.

The General Committee will meet again at a date to be announced.

General Committee Work Programme

The General Assembly’s General Committee met this morning to consider the organization of work of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly and the allocation of items for the session. It was also to take up the agenda of the General Assembly.

The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General (document A/BUR/54/1 and Add.1), according to which the Committee may wish to recommend that the fifty-fourth session should recess not later than Tuesday, 14 December. By its resolution 53/239 of 8 June 1999, the General Assembly decided that the fifty- fourth session would close on Tuesday, 5 September 2000.

Recalling the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Rationalization of the Procedures and Organization of the General Assembly that items that have lost their relevance be eliminated from the agenda along with those that are not ripe for consideration or could be dealt with by subsidiary organs of the Assembly, the Secretary-General states that the Main Committees should be encouraged to continue with the review of their respective agendas. The General Committee may wish to consider deferring to a later session items for which decisions or action are not required at the present session.

The document contains the list of the items recommended for inclusion in this year's agenda of the Assembly. The new items on the agenda include those on the observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; cooperation between the United Nations and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization; granting of observer status in the General Assembly for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization; observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly; the need to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental right of its 22 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respected; financing of the United Nations Mission in East Timor; and armed aggression.

According to the memorandum, the sponsors of the requests for inclusion of all those items, except for the first and the last one, have suggested that they should be allocated to the plenary. The item on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources has been included in the provisional agenda of the fifty-fourth session without reference to its allocation. The item on the financing of the United Nations Mission in East Timor would be allocated to the Fifth Committee.

(The addendum to the memorandum contains information, including further items, to be included in it.)

Question of Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India

CLAUDE MOREL (Seychelles) said that following consultations with Madagascar and France, it had been suggested to recommend that the inclusion of the item be deferred until the next session of the General Assembly, and that the item be inscribed in the provisional agenda for the fifty-fifth session.

JACQUES LOUIS BOISSON (Monaco) said that after consultations with Madagascar and France it had been suggested to postpone until the next session the question under consideration and to inscribe that item for the provisional agenda of the fifty-fifth session without prejudice to the positions of the two countries on the matter.

The Committee then decided that consideration of the item should be deferred to the fifty-fifth session and that it be included in the provisional agenda of that sesion.

Question of East Timor

VORAVEE WIRASAMBAM (Thailand) said within the framework of the 5 May Tripartite Agreements on East Timor, important discussions were currently taking place to find a just and comprehensive solution to the problem in the Territory. He suggested that the General Committee recommend that the plenary resume consideration of the issue.

FRANCOIS ALABRUME (France) said that following consultation with the parties concerned, it seemed that an agreement on the issue was possible. His delegation also proposed that the General Committee recommend that the item be directly examined in plenary. He also added that it was his understanding that the parties concerned wanted the debate on the item in plenary to be held at the beginning of December. The recommendation to allocate the item to the plenary was also being made with the understanding that the bodies and individuals concerned would also be heard by the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).

The item was then recommended for inclusion in the agenda of the fifty- fourth session.

Commemoration of Tenth Anniversary of Convention on Rights of Child

PER NORSTROM (Sweden) said this year the international community commemorated the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provided a special occasion to reaffirm commitments towards that cause. A solemn plenary session would be an appropriate forum to hold the commemoration. The Governments of Canada, Egypt, Mali, Mexico, Pakistan and Sweden had requested the inclusion of that item on the agenda. It should be allocated to the plenary of the General Assembly.

FRANCESCO PAOLO FULCI (Italy) praised the initiative to request the inclusion in the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly an item on the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children were the future of the world, to protect them was to protect the future. The Convention addressed a number of important issues, including those of the right to life and family relations; freedom of expression, conscience and religion; and the protection of children from all forms of violence. Recently, the international community had made additional efforts to enhance and protect the rights of the child. In particular, he was referring to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 1998. Italy strongly supported the inclusion of that item in the agenda of the fifty-fourth session.

Mr. BOISSON (Monaco) said the Security Council had held a fruitful debate to the issue of children in armed conflict on 25 August. As a result of that debate, everyone had become aware that while the Convention had been almost universally ratified, its implementation still left something to be desired. For that reason, his delegation supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

The General Committee then recommended the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

Mr. NOSTROM (Sweden) said 17 States were members of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, including his country. Non- governmental organizations (NGOs) also participated in the work of the Institute. It also fulfilled the ideals for obtaining observer status and its work was directly relevant to the United Nations in promoting sustainable democracy and electoral processes worldwide. In its activities, the Institute adopted a non- prescriptive approach to democratization. It had cooperated with the United Nations on several projects. He hoped that the General Committee would decide to include the item on the current session’s agenda.

GENNADY GATILOV (Russian Federation) said his delegation did not have any objection to the Institute itself since it was an authoritative international organization that did useful work. That body could not be put in the category of typical cases. The Institute was an intergovernmental body which included associated NGO members. All members could vote. The Institute was therefore not a purely intergovernmental organization, especially since the constitution of its members could change. Granting observer status to it would be undesirable and presented the risk of opening up a proliferation of like intergovernmental organizations trying to obtain observer status in the Assembly. There was need for an in-depth analysis of the current proposed item.

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said the proposed item was of enormous importance to the United Nations and his country. After reviewing the available information, however, certain doubts had arisen regarding the intergovernmental nature of the organization. Cuba had no objection in principle. However, it would be worth recalling that Assembly resolution A/49/26 stated that observer status would be given only to government and intergovernmental organizations. He drew attention to the fact there were aspects of the Institute that did not correspond to that of an intergovernmental organization. It would be beneficial if observer status was not granted.

RAIMUNDO GONZALEZ (Chile) said that the discussion under way on the granting of observer status seemed to be a minor matter. His country was a co-sponsor of the request to include the proposed item on the current agenda of the Assembly. The Institute clearly had the nature of an intergovernmental organization. That had been recognized for years. The fundamental objective of the Institute was consistent and compatible with the objectives of the Charter. The idea of promoting sustainable democracy the world over was something that should be shared by all the United Nations. His delegation supported inclusion of the item on the agenda.

Situation Pertaining to Republic of China on Taiwan

IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said the Republic of China on Taiwan was a free and democratic State and not a province. It existed by itself in a well-defined territorial space. It possessed a territory, a population and state power that was exercised over the population, in addition to treaty-making powers. The Republic of China on Taiwan could be proud of building a nation that respected democracy and human rights. His country had also restored diplomatic relation with it in January 1996. Some 30 other sovereign States also maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. In addition nearly two thirds of Member States of the United Nations also openly maintained trade and economic relations with Taiwan, the fourth largest trading state in the world. He recommended inclusion of the item in the current agenda of the Assembly.

QIN HUASUN (China) said his delegation had carefully read the document on the observer status for the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and had taken note of some useful work conducted by the Institute, as well as its connections with the international organizations. It found the Institute to be a unique and novel international organization, which had States and NGOs as its members. Both States and NGOs enjoyed the same rights and obligations. It was necessary to be extremely prudent when considering granting the Institute observer status in the General Assembly, as it was hard to determine whether it met the requirements for the granting of such a status.

MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDID (Iraq) said his delegation had no objection to the efforts of the Institute, but the presence of NGOs participating in the Institute raised concerns. His delegation would not like to grant observer status to those organizations, which would give rise to complex consideration. For that reason it objected to the inclusion of the item in this year’s agenda.

ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) said the previous speakers had made his task easier. The problem was not with the objectives and the role of the Institute, but with the legal nature of its status. It was a question if it came into the category of organizations which could be granted the observer status. It was not an inter-governmental organization, but a hybrid, gathering together governments and NGOs. Legal aspects of the problem should be considered in order not to create a precedent. The Sixth Committee (Legal) should be asked to give recommendations on the matter.

Taking into account the different views expressed, the General Committee deferred consideration of the item's inclusion to a later date following consultations.

QIN HUASUN (China) said that in the past six years, a small number of countries had once again raised the issue of so-called Taiwan’s participation at the United Nations in an attempt to create “two Chinas” at the Organization. Such an illegal act was an open challenge to the “one China” principle widely recognized by the international community, and a severe violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. It had seriously infringed upon China’s sovereignty and grossly interfered in China’s internal affairs. China strongly opposed the inclusion of item 171 of the draft agenda regarding Taiwan on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly. He hoped that the General Committee would continue to uphold justice, safeguard the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) and norms of international law, and support the position of the Chinese delegation.

In the 22 years before resolution 2758 (XXVI) had been adopted, due to the cold war, the Government of the People’s Republic of China had been excluded from the United Nations, and the seat of China at the Organization had been illegally occupied by the Taiwan authorities, he said. The resolution had corrected that historical mistake by recognizing clearly and unequivocally that “the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council”. Restoring the legitimate rights of the People’s Republic of China and expelling the Taiwan authorities from the Organization were two indivisible aspects of the one issue of China’s representation at the United Nations in a just, thorough and comprehensive manner.

Article 4 of the Charter clearly stipulated that United Nations membership was open only to sovereign States, he said. As a province of China, Taiwan was in no position to participate in the work or activities of the United Nations or its specialized agencies. The issue of Taiwan was fundamentally different from those of Germany and Korea and could not be placed on a par with them. Although this year’s proposal by a small number of States had come out after elaborate and meticulous repackaging, it would inevitably come to the same end as that of all the previous ones. The General Committee since 1993 had flatly refused to include the issue of Taiwan’s so-called “participation” in the United Nations in the agenda of the General Assembly.

DOMINGOS AUGUSTO FERREIRA (Sao Tome and Principe) said that the sub-region created by conferring United Nations membership upon the People's Republic of China on Taiwan in 1971, had left 22 million people without representation. Although the Republic of China on Taiwan had elected officials and a strong economy, the creation of this sub region had sparked an arms race and a dangerous proliferation of all types of weapons that could jeopardize international security.

The situation merited the attention of all the members of the United Nations, he said. He called on the General Committee to address this situation and to work in the direction of peace, international security and stability in the world.

FAMATTA ROSE OSODE (Liberia) said that while Liberia supported the supplementary item now under consideration by the General Committee, a much harder look at the political and legal realities of the Taiwan Strait was needed in order to address the needs of the 22 million residents of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It would be appropriate, she said, for the General Assembly to establish an ad hoc committee for that purpose. The representative also recommended that the Republic of China on Taiwan be given an observer status, in its own name, in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Health Organization.

She also noted that the long-term goal of the eventual unification of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan as “one China” could not be served if the United Nations continued with the status quo isolation of Taiwan politically. She was sorry to learn that Liberia’s sponsorship of the proposal before the General Committee had offended the Chinese people. Liberia’s aim, she said, was to find ways to resolve this outstanding and complex issue.

WIN MRA (Myanmar) said that Article 2 of the Charter stipulated that the United Nations and its Member States should refrain from any action against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State or intervene in matters within the jurisdiction of any State. The question of China’s representation at the United Nations had been settled with resolution 2758 (XXVI) which recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only representative of China at the United Nations. Myanmar abided by the one China policy with Taiwan as an inalienable part of that State.

ANWARUL KARIM CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said issues in the proposal before the General Committee did not promote the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Bangladesh considered Taiwan a part of China. He said that view was widely acknowledged in the international community. The question of China's representation at the United Nations had been resolved in a comprehensive manner. He therefore strongly advocated that the item not be included in the agenda.

MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso) said that, as in past years, his delegation could not remain indifferent to the destiny of the Republic of China on Taiwan. He emphasized that Burkina Faso did not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of any States; justice and fairness, however, were fundamental principles, and should be implemented. It should be taken into account that Taiwan was a tangible reality. For 50 years now, it had been operating as an autonomous entity; it had its own effective and legitimate government.

Free determination of peoples should be ensured, he continued. The people of Taiwan should have the freedom to go in the direction they chose. The international community should aid it towards that end. Avoiding or ignoring the question would give rise to a situation harmful to international peace and security. For that reason, his delegation supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the General Assembly.

Mr. BAALI (Algeria) said that his delegation had always considered this question resolved by resolution 2758 (XXVI), which had redressed a historic error of the cold war period. It had also resolved in a definitive manner the representation of China in the United Nations. The population of Taiwan was represented in the Organization through the People’s Republic of China. The official status of Taiwan did not allow it to participate in the work of the United Nations, as it was not a sovereign State. The item under consideration should not be included in the agenda of the United Nations. That position was consistent with the former actions of the General Committee.

JACKEO A. RELANG (Marshall Islands) said that democracy was alive and thriving in the Republic of China on Taiwan and that the Marshall Islands had found a "natural partner" there. He said that both nations had faced tremendous challenges in the protection and promotion of the human rights of their people, and that both had sacrificed much in the defence of freedom. He cited the nation's technical knowledge and commitment to international development as sufficient reason to support inclusion of the item.

He also noted that two separate governments had existed on opposite sides of the Taiwan Straits for many years, and that while the goal of unification under a democratic system was a noble one, it might be a long way in the future. Until then, he said, his delegation saw no obstacle in having the freely elected officials present their opinions, arguments and experiences before the United Nations.

DURGA PRASAD BHATTARAI (Nepal) said his delegation had always maintained that the question of China’s representation at the United Nations had been settled by the Assembly at its twenty-sixth session under resolution 2758 (XXVI). The inclusion of the item on the current agenda would therefore undermine not only the authority of a decision made 28 years ago by the Assembly, but also the purposes and principles of the Charter. Consideration of the proposed item by the Assembly would be an interference in the internal affairs of a Member State since Taiwan was a part of China.

MAYO ABAKAKA (Chad) said the maintenance of international peace and security was still one of the objectives of the United Nations. The Charter recommended settling disputes in a peaceful way with recourse to dialogue. To conserve peace in the sub-region of the Taiwan Strait, he called on the Republic of China on Taiwan to continue the dialogue it had begun. China and the Republic of China on Taiwan were two separate States with two governments. Neither was subject to the jurisdiction of the other. The United Nations was a rostrum for the representation of all independent countries. Now was the time to authorize the Republic of China on Taiwan to express to the international community the desires of its 22 million people and participate in activities of the United Nations.

BABOUCCAR-BLAISE ISMAILA JAGNE (Gambia) said the time was long overdue to recognize mistakes and correct them. Both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan had defined territories and separate diplomatic relations with other States. Why then should the United Nations perpetuate discrimination of one against the other. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) was fundamentally defective. It had failed woefully on the issue of the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It had been founded during the cold war era which was now long gone. “Are we going to continue living in the past”? he asked, or take the opportunity to correct a politically misguided effort.

MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said the creation of resolution 2758 (XXVI) was not reflective of the historic background and perspectives of 1949. There was talk of sovereignty in the United Nations. What was sovereignty? It referred to separate entities which were political and enjoyed separate political dominion. That was the case in the question of the Republic of China on Taiwan. He pointed out that resolution 2758 (XXVI) resolved only one question -- the right of representation of mainland China to the exclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan. In 1971, a number of States had voted against the resolution, while a good number had remained undecided. He felt obliged to say that there could be no pretense that the world was safe when the very Organization which was supposed to guarantee safety was now compromising international affairs.

He said resolution 2758 further prepared the stage for a harmful situation regarding peace in the region. It was every nation’s dream to identify itself one way or another with the United Nations. The Taiwanese people probably wondered why such a fundamental right had been taken away in October 1971 by the very Organization they had helped to set up. He recommended inclusion of the item on the agenda and advocated the establishment of a working group to determine why resolution 2758 could not be revisited.

JOHN DE SARAM (Sri Lanka) said there was only one China, which was the People’s Republic of China -- according to resolution 2758 (XXVI), it represented the people of China at the United Nations. His delegation opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

Mr. BOISSON (Monaco) said his Government held an unfavourable position regarding the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly.

REX S. HOROI (Solomon Islands) said that if the General Committee denied the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan their right to be heard in the United Nations and to have their historically unique situation considered by the General Assembly, the Committee would be turning its back on the dangerous situation in the Taiwan Strait which could explode into an armed conflict. Of all the nations co-sponsoring the proposal, the Solomon Islands was nearest to the Taiwan Strait across which the threats of military action frequently made by the People's Republic of China would be fulfilled. The United Nations, he said, should take those threats seriously.

He said that participation in the United Nations system of the Republic of China on Taiwan, a major economic power whose words and deeds demonstrated its commitment to the principles of the Charter, would benefit the Organization. It would assist in creating an atmosphere conducive to achieving the successful conclusion of what would be difficult negotiations for unification with the People's Republic of China.

MARIO H.CASTELLON DUARTE (Nicaragua) said that his Government supported the motion to establish a working group to propose practical recommendations on the matter. The Republic of China on Taiwan met the conditions to be considered for participation in the United Nations. It was functioning efficiently for the 22 million of its inhabitants. With the admission of Taiwan, which had been admitted to international financial organizations, there would be an increase in the budget of the Organization.

At the moment, he said, the Organization was not benefiting from the participation of 22 million people, who were also excluded from the United Nations protection of human rights. His Government supported the admission of the Republic of China on Taiwan in the United Nations.

LAMUEL A. STANISLAUS (Grenada) noting that his country was the only member of the General Committee that had diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan, said that Grenada was proud to join the other delegations requesting the inclusion of the supplementary item that would return the Republic of China on Taiwan to full membership in the United Nations without prejudice to the People's Republic of China.

He said that both the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China on the mainland had shown tremendous economic growth and development under two different systems of political and social values with neither excercising control over the other. They had co-existed for 50 years, he noted. The international community had marveled at the economic growth of both nations.

He said that with such a solid record of performance by a motivated, entrepreneurial and peaceful people, the Republic of China on Taiwan qualified for membership in the United Nations, where the solidarity and unification of China would be enhanced and the dreams of the Chinese people fulfilled.

LEE L. MOORE (Saint Kitts and Nevis) said his Government did not presume to offer any resolution or solution to any dispute among the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. They alone could solve that problem. Since its independence, however, his country had established a relationship with the Republic of China on Taiwan. Democracy had developed in the Republic of China on Taiwan and the human rights of its 22 million people now demanded expression in the Assembly.

ADMARAL KH. ARYSTANBEKOVA (Kazakhstan) said her country proceeded from the clear understanding that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of the people of China and that the province of Taiwan was an integral part of that country. She supported non-inclusion of the item in the agenda.

MICHEL ORLANDO KERPENS (Suriname) said there was only one China -- resolution 2758 (XXVI) had established that. His country continued to support the People’s Republic of China as a single representative of that country in the United Nations. There was no reason for the General Committee to recommend the inclusion of the item.

ELFATIH MAHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said his delegation believed that the proposal for inclusion ran in contradiction with the United Nations Charter and constituted a blatant interference in the internal affairs of the People’s Republic of China. The issue of representation of China had been resolved by resolution 2758 (XXVI), and that resolution needed to be preserved. His delegation completely refused to support the proposal on the inclusion of the item.

BADRI ALI BIGOREH (Djibouti) said his delegation had always supported the fact that there was one indivisible China and that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was its sole representative at the United Nations. For his country it was a matter of principle. Djibouti opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

GUILLERMO A. MELENDEZ-BARAHONA (El Salvador) said that when examining the inclusion of an additional item, it was necessary to consider the exceptional position of the people of Taiwan. The presentation of the initiative did not relate to the size of the territory or the number of people represented. The Charter enshrined the sovereign equality of all States. Speaking about Taiwan, El Salvador was speaking about a country with which it had friendly relations. The political, economic and social realities of that country could not be disregarded, particularly in view of substantive changes in the international situation in the aftermath of the cold war.

BADER MOHAMMD E. EL-AWDI (Kuwait) said resolution 2758 had resolved the issue. He also believed that any attempt to include the item now would be a clear violation of the resolution. His country recognized only one China, one Government, and one Chinese people with one capital -- Beijing.

FAYYSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said respect for international resolutions was the policy of his Government. Resolution 2758 was outstanding. Including the proposed item was therefore not in line with the Charter or the content of the resolution. Any attempt to create two Chinese States was an attempt to distort facts and interfere in the territorial integrity of a Member State. Syria recognized one China -- the People’s Republic of China.

JARGALSAIKHANY ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said that there was no compelling reason for the propoesed item to be included on the agenda. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) restored the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China and had settled the issue of the representation of the Chinese people and the Government in the United Nations. The proposal to include the item in the agenda of the current session not only contradicted political reality, but also the prncipled decision taken by the General Assembly in 1971.

DAVID RUBADIRI (Malawi) said the Republic of China on Taiwan had been an example of the democratic principles which all were trying to attain. The Republic of China on Taiwan had established formal relations with a number of recognized members of the United Nations. It did not claim to represent all of China, just 22 million people. It was necessary now to revoke the section of 2758 which excluded the Republic of China on Taiwan from the United Nations.

ANGEL EDMUNDO ORELLANA MERCADO (Honduras) said his Government supported the request for the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session to ensure the rights of the 22 million people of Taiwan.

GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala) said that while it is one of the countries that maintained and valued full diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan, Guatemala would reiterate its policy of unconditional adherence to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. "We trust", he said "that the differences existing in the viewpoints of the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China will find a path of solution and understanding through the ongoing conversations between both parties."

He said that if the United Nations could in any way assist in creating conditions that would facilitate a dialogue between these two nations, Guatemala would support the corresponding decisions.

PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said his country supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China and saw no validity in the proposal to include the item on the agenda.

Mr.FULCI (Italy) said the question had already been decided by resolution 2758 (XXVI), by the terms of which the Assembly had recognized that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the only lawful representative of the people of China to the United Nations. It was the responsibility of the Government of that country to pursue a peaceful solution to that internal problem.

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the issue of Taiwan had already been resolved by the relevant General Assembly resolution, which recognized the Peoples’s Republic of China and expelled the authorities of Taiwan from the United Nations. Taiwan was an inseparable part of China, and two Chinas should not be recognized. Thus, the inclusion of the item in the agenda could not be supported. Making an analogy with the case of the memberships of Germany and Korea was not valid. The item should not be included as an agenda item of the current session.

JAMALEDDIN A. HAMIDA (Libya) said the General Assembly had settled the question of representation of China at the United Nations, and the question should not be raised again. The People’s Republic of China was the only representative of the people of that country. The General Committee had refused to include that item on the agenda in the past, and he hoped the question would not come up again in the future.

DIENEBOU KABA CAMARA (Côte d’Ivoire) said that her country recognized the important role that the Republic of China on Taiwan played, but she was not in favour of including that item on the General Assembly agenda. The People’s Republic of China, which represented the country at the United Nations, should seek a peaceful solution to the problem.

Mr. BIATO (Brazil) said the relevant resolution had provided a fine and definitive solution to the problem. His country therefore opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

MUHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said there was only one China and only one Chinese people. Including the proposed item on the agenda would be tantamount to bypassing the resolutions of the Assembly. It would also set a dangerous precedent, since the Organization should protect its resolutions.

STUART W. LESLIE (Belize) stressed that it was difficult to come to terms with the reality that 22 million people were not allowed through their democratically elected representatives to participate in world politics and find solutions to problems. While not supporting impediments to the sovereignty of any State, it proposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.

GENNADY GATILOV (Russian Federation) said he believed that resolution 2758, which described the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China, adequately regulated and settled the question of China in the United Nations. His delegation therefore opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

ANZHELA KORNELIOUK (Belarus) said there was only one China -- the People's Republic of China. Taiwan was an inalienable part of it and not a sovereign State. His country opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.

FERNANDO PETRELLA (Argentina) said the People's Republic of China was the sole representative of China in the United Nations. His country had supported adoption of resolution 2758 based on the principles of justice and territorial integrity. Taiwan was an inalienable part of China, and Argentina was not in favour of the proposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.

CLAUDE MOREL (Seychelles) added his voice to those which had argued against inclusion of the item on the agenda.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said his delegation opposed the proposal, for General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled definitively the question of Chinese representation at the United Nations.

SONIA FELICITY ELLIOTT (Guyana) said that her delegation was opposed to the inclusion of the issue. There was only one China, of which Taiwan was an integral part. She urged that the issue not be pursued.

MARTHINUS CHRISTOFFEL JOHANNES VAN SCHALKWYK (South Africa) said his delegation had established full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and cancelled its relations with Taiwan. Today’s proposed item was an internal matter of the People’s Republic of China, and his country could not support its inclusion on the agenda.

HENRI BLAISE GOTIENNE (Congo) said that it was necessary to resolutely reaffirm the strengthening of the provisions of the Charter. There was one China within the United Nations, and that had been established by the General Assembly resolution. It was possible to show sympathy with the province of Taiwan, but that matter should be resolved peacefully and internally.

ALOUNKEO KITTIKHOUN (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) said the position of his country remained unchanged. Like the majority of States, it supported only one China at the United Nations. Taiwan was an inseparable part of the People’ Republic of China. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled that matter once and for all. His delegation was opposed to the inclusion of the item on Taiwan in the agenda of the fifty-fourth session.

FRANCOIS ALABRUNE (France) said the position of his country was based on respect for resolution 2758 (XXVI). His delegation was not in favour of the inscription of the item on the agenda.

RASHID ALIMOV (Tajikistan) said that the principal position of his country was based on the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of that country was the only legitimate Government representing that country, of which Taiwan was an integral part. He was against the proposal to include the item in the agenda of the General Assembly for the fifty-fourth session.

ANA MARIA MENENDEZ (Spain) said it was not appropriate to include the item on the agenda of the Assembly.

PERCY METSING MANGOAELA (Lesotho) said his delegation was dismayed that the item, which came up every year with fewer and fewer States requesting its inclusion, was still a source of dispute. There was one China -– the People’s Republic of China. That had been resolved in 1971, yet the issue continued to plague the Assembly every year. It now served no useful purpose.

Mr. CESPEDES (Cuba) said the provisions of resolution 2758 were relevant. To intercede would violate the principles of international law. The People's Republic of China was the sole representative of China in the United Nations. He urged that in compliance with the provisions of international law, the item not be included on the agenda.

ENCYLA SINJELA (Zambia) said the annual ritual of the Republic of China on Taiwan was now a futile gesture. Her Government recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only China.

JULIAN HUNTE (Saint Lucia) said the China issue was now moot. The recognition of Taiwan as a nation defied the principle tenets upon which sovereignty and statehood were based. Saint Lucia believed in one China -– the People’s Republic of China and thus stated its unambiguous opposition to inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session.

MOHAMMAD AKBAR ANDKHOLIE (Afghansistan) said the question of China had been settled in 1971. His delegation was strongly opposed to inclusion of the item on the agenda.

SIMON PAUL RICHARDS (Dominica) said the current exercise was one his country took very seriosusly. Despite the debate being called futile, Dominica would not abandon the cause. The Republic of China on Taiwan had made such spectacular political and economic advances since 1971 it was now a force of stability in the region. It was also a pluralistic and democratic State with positive political development. The Republic of China on Taiwan’s continued exclusion from the United Nations was an exceptional international situation that called for a review.

ROSELYN RUTH ASUMWA ODERA (Kenya) said that her country supported the one- China policy. The Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China, and resolution 2758 was a clear legislative authority, which remained valid today. The United Nations was not the right forum for this issue to be resolved amicably.

ROBERT ROSENSTOCK (United States) said the policy of the United States was long-standing and consistent: there was one China, cross-Strait problems should be resolved peacefully, and there should be dialogue.

MOKHTAR CHAOUACHI (Tunisia) said there was only one China, and resolution 2758 had resolved that issue. Therefore, a new item should not be added to the agenda of the General Assembly.

DENNIE M.J.WILSON (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that it was necessary to go back and examine the fallacy of resolution 2758 (XXVI). What had happened was an example of what could go wrong at the United Nations. The resolution did not represent a just solution, for it failed to address the issue of representation of the Republic of China on Taiwan at the United Nations. Today the necessity of direct representation of the 22 million people was being discussed. The legitimacy of the government of Taiwan could not be challenged, and it was impossible to ignore the issue. He urged the consideration of the agenda item 171.

DAUDI N. MWAKAWAGO (United Republic of Tanzania) said that resolution 2758 remained valid and had ended more than 30 years of debate about China’s representation at the United Nations. He noted that the argument in the proposed agenda item could only be seen as an attempt to undermine this resolution and the integrity of the People's Republic of China.

He said that political problems within any territorial jurisdiction were matters for the respective sovereigns to resolve peacefully. He noted that the international community should not aggravate such problems by encouraging dismemberment, but dialogue. He urged the General Committee to reject the proposal.

NASTE CALOVSKI (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said that while the proposal to include the item was a positive effort, the decision rested with the Committee. His Government also felt that it was essential that the Organization abide by the Charter.

Mr. GONZALES (Chile) said the representation of China had been resolved in 1971. He therefore opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.

KOUROSH AHMADI (Iran) said his country complied with the one China policy and considered Taiwan an integral part of the People's Republic of China. His country would not accept the inclusion of the item on the agenda.

MOHAMED ABDO AL-SINDI (Yemen) said there was one China -- the People's Republic of China – and it was the legal and sole representative of China. There was, therefore, no need to have the item included on the Agenda.

ISMAIL KHAIRAT (Egypt) said the People's Republic of China was the sole representative of China. His country did not agree with the idea of mentioning the item on the agenda of the current session.

JOHN ANDREW GRAINGER (United Kingdom) said today’s arguments against the inscription of the item were convincing. His delegation was also against including the item.

INAMUL HAQUE (Pakistan) said the General Committee had been forced to enter into a repetitive and futile exercise for many years. Today’s debate had established once more that Taiwan had no right to be represented at the United Nations. The question of representation had been decided in 1971. Any attempt at re-opening the issue would constitute a serious violation of the Charter. The People's Republic of China was a highly respected Member of the United Nations. Taiwan was a part of China and had no right to join the Organization. He hoped that this would be the last time that General Committee would have to go through the avoidable and sterile exercise about the issue.

Based on views expressed, the General Committee decided not to include the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly.

Financing of United Nations Mission in East Timor

The Committee recommended inclusion of the item on the agenda

Armed Aggression against Democratic Republic of the Congo

Mr. KAYINAMURA (Rwanda) requested guidance on rule 14 of the rules of procedure. The note verbale from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was dated 8 September, and he sought clarification on the rules of procedure as to when the item could come up.

ATOKI ILEKA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that in the note of 7 September, his Government had expressed its wish for the item to remain on the agenda of the United Nations until a solution was found. He would like the item to be discussed in the plenary. Full implementation of the Lusaka process should be ensured.

THEO-BEN GURIRAB (Namibia) President of the General Assembly and Chairman of the General Committee, said that the recommendation for inclusion of the item had been made during the fifty-third session of the General Assembly, it was now for the General Committee to decide the matter, and the decision should come only from the members of the Committee. The Committee had been asked to endorse the decision made at the fifty-third session of the General Assembly.

GIDEON KAYINAMURA (Rwanda) said that the United Nations functioned the way it did because it abided by its own rules. Article 12 of the Charter, in its parts 1 and 2 stated that when a matter was under consideration by the Security Council, it might not be debated in any other forum. The item was entitled “Armed Aggression”. The General Committee could not be misled by the presumption of the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that there had been an aggression. The Council was seized of the matter, and a peacekeeping force was to be deployed in the area. He would like a ruling on how to proceed in view of the provisions of the Charter. He also wanted clarification on how to move a debate on the matter, which had already been brought before the attention of the International Court of Justice.

The situation in the Great Lakes Region was extremely delicate, he said. Recently, regional efforts had been made to bring a matter to an end and a ceasefire had been signed. The Committee could not afford to jeopardize the efforts and to delay the peace process in the Great Lakes region. For its part, his country had suffered from genocide and aggression. For the sake of peace, his delegation would oppose the motion and try to explain the situation in the region.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said that the General Assembly was the master of its own business, but other processes which were already in place should not be jeopardized. He shared the views of Rwanda and appealed for the decision to be taken to allow all the processes to continue in order to solve the problem in the region.

Mr. ILEKA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that he was obliged to take the floor again. There was no incompatibility between different United Nations bodies. When the Security Council was dealing with the question, other bodies could make recommendations. Backing up the request of his Government, he had to restate the facts: the country was living under military emergency. The aggression by the Rwanda-Uganda coalition had led to numerous problems in his country and an upsurge of disease had taken place in the region. There were also violations of humanitarian law. Atrocities had been committed in the Kitangani region. Hundreds of innocent people had died as a result of the intervention by uninvited troops. The international community could not remain silent. It had the duty to forcefully condemn the aggression of which his country was a victim. Those who invaded his country, had done so under false pretexts. As for the genocide in Rwanda, it had been committed by its own people.

SELMA NDEYAPO ASHIPALA-MUSAVYI (Namibia) said the General Assembly could not make recommendations on an issue before the Security Council, but it could discuss it. Her delegation would await the recommendation of the General Committee on the issue.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committee was a law unto its own and could make recommendations. Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure stated that while the Assembly could not take decisions on a matter before the Council, it could discuss it.

The Committee then recommended the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly.

Allocation of Items

The Committtee then allocated the items to the various General Assembly Committees and the plenary according to patterns taken in the past.

ALBERTO SALAMANCA (Bolivia), speaking on the granting of observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, requested that the item be moved directly to consideration by the plenary of the fifty-fourth session.

GENNADY GATILOV (Russian Federation) said that the decision of the General Committee regarding the adoption of the draft resolution containing an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women directly in the plenary should not create a precedent for the future.

YUAN XIAOYING (China) supported the opinion expressed by the Russian Federation. China had no intention to block the proposal to allocate the item directly to the plenary, but for the future hoped that similar resolutions would be adopted through other channels. Precedent should not be created for the future.

* *** *