On 25 October 1971, the 26th session of the United Nations General Assembly held its 1976th plenary meeting. Photo/Xinhua
Voting Notes: The longest day
Reporter/Huang Wei Song Chundan
Published in China News Weekly, Issue 1017 on October 25, 2021
"To this day, I remember the countries that pledged to vote for us and finally reneged on their word." George W. Bush, then permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations and later President of the United States, wrote in his autobiography. Until hours before the vote began, he was confident that the U.S.-backed proposal would win by a slim majority or even a margin of one vote.
He wasn't the only one who thought that way.
One European diplomat lamented that the United States had turned the vote into a "worldwide referendum on whether to vote for or against the United States." According to the statistics of "national will", most observers at the United Nations believe that the two sides are on an equal footing, and the US side has a slightly better chance of winning.
In China, on the other side of the ocean, Mao Zedong also held one end with his head nurse, Wu Xujun. Wu Xujun reads daily newspapers for Mao Zedong and lectures on current affairs, and is familiar with the ongoing debates and votes in the United Nations. She said the vote could pass. Mao Zedong said that it would not work. She said, yes. Mao Zedong said, no.
Mao Zedong believed that the United States was a "computer country," including Nixon sending Kissinger to Visit China sooner or later, all of which were well calculated. He later quipped that he still had so many superstitions about the baton of the United States.
In October 1971, Premier Zhou Enlai met with U.S. President's National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who was secretly visiting China. Photo/Xinhua
Why did the baton fail? What did the supercomputer miss? Where did the giant hand of history cast its decisive and irreversible vote?
The time goes back to October 25, 1971, the 1976th Plenary Session of the 26th Session of the Un-General Assembly to debate and vote on the question of China's representation. It was a long day as a marathon.
The tide has changed
October 25 is Monday. The United Nations' golden dome, blue-carpeted Great Hall is bustling with people standing in the aisles and walls.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, The President of the General Assembly, Adam Malik, sat in the middle of the high, overlooking podium, with United Nations Secretary-General U Thant and U.S. Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs sitting on either side. Indonesia was in a state of severed diplomatic relations with China at that time, and the United States and other countries were satisfied with Malik's presidency of the conference and believed that he could not be biased toward China.
In fact, when Malik went to New York in September to attend the meeting, he deliberately detoured to Hong Kong to have a secret conversation with his friend, the Indonesian patriotic overseas Chinese Situ Meisheng, saying that he wanted to make a difference on the issue of China's seat. Situ Meisheng conveyed to Beijing that Zhou Enlai thanked him and told him that he could circulate the English version of the August 20 statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that made China's position clear to Malik, hoping that he would help him if possible, "but there is no need to be reluctant."
At three o'clock in the afternoon, Malik knocked down the wooden mallet and the assembly began.
Albanian Deputy Foreign Minister Ma Lieri, Taiwan deputy Liu Kai, and US deputy Bush successively took the stage to make a second debate on the issue of China's representation. The list of speakers will close on 20 October, and this will be the last round of statements.
On this issue, the two camps have been facing each other for more than 20 years.
From the Sixth Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1951 to the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1960, the United States was able to easily obtain a majority every year, so that the proposal to "suspend the discussion" of China's representation (because of the so-called "aggression" issue) was adopted. However, in 1960, Canada, britain, Brazil, and other major countries that had originally followed the vote all informed the United States that they would change their positions the following year in favor of discussing the issue.
So the United States took a different approach, joining forces with Japan, Australia, Colombia, and Italy to put forward a proposal on "important issues" of Chinese representation in 1961. The proposal stipulates that any proposal to change China's representation is a major issue set out in Article 18 of the Charter of the United Nations and needs to be adopted by a two-thirds majority.
Also in 1961, the Soviet Union put forward a proposal to "restore China's legitimate rights in the United Nations", which was put forward for the second time in 1962. With the hostility between China and the Soviet Union, since 1963, Albania, a good brother of China and known as the "bright light of European socialism", has become the lead country, and this proposal has been put forward every year, Algeria, Pakistan, Romania, etc. are the core countries, and the number of sponsors has increased year by year.
By 1970, the situation had changed a lot. This year, the vote on the proposal by 18 countries, including Albania, was 51 votes in favour, 49 votes against and 25 abstentions, and the votes in favor exceeded the votes against for the first time, although they did not receive a two-thirds majority, but they had crossed a psychological line, indicating a turn in the tide.
The tide has indeed changed.
Britain has always voted in favor of the proposals of Albania and other countries as well as the United States, and China regards them as "half a vote", so it has also shelved Sino-British relations in the "semi-establishment of diplomatic relations" at the chargé d'affaires level. British Foreign Secretary Holm once asked Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi, we have voted for you in the last session of the UN General Assembly, how many times do we need to vote to make China and the UK exchange ambassadors? Chen Yi said that one time is enough, but it must be an all-vote. In 1971, Britain finally decided to vote "in full".
Previously, Canada, Italy, Austria and other countries had cast "half a vote" like the United Kingdom, but after the last SESSION of the United Nations General Assembly, these three countries have established diplomatic relations with China, And Canada has indicated that it wants to change its voting position, and Italy and Austria are obviously very likely. Two other NATO partners of the United States, the Netherlands, want to upgrade their chargé d'affaires with China, and Belgium is exploring the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with China. Both countries voted for the U.S. proposal last time and abstained from supporting China, which could change this time. Needless to say, France, which took the lead in establishing diplomatic relations with China in 1964 and has now withdrawn from NATO, has not yet joined the United Nations because of the problem of two Germanys. Nixon lamented that as early as the spring of 1971, it had been understood that the "traditional voting bloc" opposing the admission of Beijing had irretrievably disintegrated.
Another "traditional voting bloc" led by Albania this year was a growing squad and prepared for the rainy day.
As early as 14 July, a preparatory meeting for the proposal was held at the headquarters of the Albanian mission, chaired by Sami Bajoli, Permanent Representative of Albania to the United Nations, with the participation of 17 countries, including Albania, Algeria, Cuba, the People's Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Tanzania, Somalia, sudan, Syria and Yugoslavia. Baholy said that this session of the UnGA is the last year of the term of office of Secretary-General U Thant of Asian origin, and U Dan has always supported the representation of the People's Republic of China, so he will do his best to fight for it this year.
According to the rules of procedure of the United Nations General Assembly, the proposal submitted first had the right to be pre-emptive, so Albania and others formally submitted the proposal to U Thant the next day. The proposal calls for: "The restoration of all rights of the People's Republic of China, the recognition of the representatives of its Government as the sole legitimate representatives of China in the Organization and the immediate expulsion of Chiang Kai-shek's representatives from the seats he illegally occupied in the Organization and all the organs to which it belongs." "In alphabetical order, the proposal begins with Albania and Algeria, hence the term "two-Arab proposal". Later, several countries participated in it, and finally it became a 23-nation proposal.
In contrast, the United States has joined forces with 22 countries, including Japan, to put forward two proposals. One is a new version of the traditional "important issues" proposal, which states that any General Assembly proposal that would result in the disrepresentation of Taiwan in the United Nations is an important issue under Article 18 of the Charter and requires a two-thirds majority. In the past, it took a two-thirds majority to admit Beijing, and now it takes two-thirds to expel Taipei, so it is called a "reverse important issue case." The other is the "dual representation" proposal, i.e., the admission of representatives of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations, confirmation of the continued representation of the Taiwan side on the other hand, and proposal that the representatives of the People's Republic of China enjoy permanent seats on the Security Council.
The two sides took the stage one after another and made final concluding statements.
Albanian Deputy Foreign Minister Ray Malie said: "The People's Republic of China is a great, powerful, peace-loving socialist country and an invincible bastion of socialism. It is a powerful protector of the interests of the peoples of the world and an insurmountable obstacle to the hegemonic plans of U.S. imperialism and Soviet social imperialism. Restoring the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations would be a victory for all Member States and for the United Nations itself, and would also seriously strike a blow to the manipulation of the United Nations by the two great powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. ”
The representative of Taiwan, Liu Kai, said that some countries fear Beijing's military might, coupled with pervasive propaganda; others are not afraid to say and do what they think is right, and that their protection of the rights of their fellow Member States is tantamount to protecting the sacred nature of the UN Charter. His delegation hoped that the General Assembly would make the right judgement.
Finally, the representative of the United States, Bush, took the stage to speak. He said he had found that there was one major issue that permeated the debate. This issue is not a question of seating for the People's Republic of China. Indeed, for the first time in history, the People's Republic of China has achieved seats in the United Nations, including permanent seats on the Security Council, and for the first time in history, there is almost agreement. The real question we face is: Should a member be expelled? If the Arab proposal were adopted, it would be the first time in the history of the United Nations that a Member State would be expelled by any procedure, whether legal or illegal. "If this is not yet an important question for this Assembly, then what is the important question?"
In October 1971, George W. Bush, Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, delivered his views at the United Nations General Assembly. Photo/Visual China
"No directional missile" is launched
Following the meeting that day, two more representatives submitted proposals to the General Assembly. Three proposals were submitted by the representative of Tunisia, Driss, and one by the representative of Saudi Arabia, Jamil Barudi.
In accordance with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, statements in the debate have been concluded, but representatives may make statements on points of order.
Barudi took the floor first, requesting that the vote be postponed to the following day so that delegates would have time to consider the four new proposals that he and the representative of Tunisia had just put forward. Not only that, he also demanded the right of priority consideration. He said that his proposal ("Beijing joins the United Nations as a permanent member of the Security Council, Taiwan remains in the United Nations, and the people of Taiwan will self-determine themselves under the supervision of the United Nations in the future") is a synthesis of the proposals of the United States and other countries and the two Arab proposals, providing its basis, if not providing a final solution.
Barudi is a veteran of the United Nations and considers himself a procedural expert. He wandered around the United Nations conference rooms every day, registered his speeches after entering the door, made a long speech, and then saved the shorthand version of his speech and reported it to the Saudi government at the end of the month, which was said to be related to the time of his speech. In his speeches, he often criticized this and that, and the target was uncertain, hence the nickname "non-directional missiles".
Bush has summoned representatives of friendly countries to several meetings to discuss strategy, but it is not known whether it is intentional or negligent, and there is no Barudi among them. The Saudi government has been following the US vote, and also has "diplomatic" relations with Taiwan, and Barudi has been ordered by the Saudi king to fully assist Taiwan.
The United States had expected that the vote would take place in a few days. A spokesman for the U.S. delegation had said it was "in line with our timetable" because the United States did not expect a vote during Kissinger's visit to China.
Kissinger began his second "Operation Polo" visit to China on October 16. Before leaving, he had a rather heated public quarrel with Secretary of State Rogers.
Rogers said with the latest statistics on the 15th that the situation is grim, and these days when the US delegation is doing canvassing work, someone always asks: "You want us to vote against Beijing, so what will your Kissinger run to Beijing at this time?" Rogers asked Kissinger: "You are in Beijing now, and the work of the delegation has not been done in vain?" Kissinger said that if the date is changed, it will adversely affect the new relationship with Beijing, and if he does not want to affect the scheduled schedule of Nixon's visit to China in February and the Soviet Union in May, he will have to go now. Moreover, he does not believe that the vote will be decisively affected, because each country votes on the basis of the political importance of relations with Beijing. The two broke up unhappily.
In his memoirs, Kissinger said sharply that in the process of opening the door to contacts with China, the US State Department felt that it had been left behind, and one aspect of its China policy that was clearly under its control was the issue of China's representation in the United Nations, and that "it grasped this issue with the feeling that its political privilege was hurt."
Kissinger said he was skeptical of Rogers' double representation proposal, feeling that it was clumsy and self-defeating, and that it was better to stick to its original position than to make itself fail in order to delay for another year or two. According to Kissinger, Nixon himself agreed, but he was reluctant to argue with Rogers and wanted to avoid being accused of being unwilling to work hard to keep Taiwan's seat.
The politicians at the top of the game are playing the next big game, in Kissinger's words, a "game of three-dimensional space" in the United States and the Soviet Union, and its name is "balance of power politics." But the parties in the United Nations do not have such a perspective and mood. The two sides have reached a short engagement.
At a meeting on the evening of 19 October to study, the two Arab sponsors predicted that, depending on the pace of the debate, the voting time might be brought forward. Albania proposed that a vote be requested immediately after the debate, and the other sponsoring countries unanimously agreed to this approach. Hearing Barudhi's motion to postpone the vote, Pakistan's representative Shahi and his partners quickly exchanged views through gestures, glances and brief words, and began to act in unison.
Shahi and the representatives of Syria and Yugoslavia all asked to speak, and there was nothing new in proposing Barudi's proposal, of course, he had the right to ask for a vote on his proposal the next day, but it did not affect the vote on the two Arab proposals today.
The other camp unanimously retorted. The representatives of Japan, the Philippines and Liberia all expressed the view that proposals under the same agenda could be voted on separately. "Your representatives may have so much power to make their own claims, and we must first ask for instructions at home."
Malik ruled to vote on whether to postpone the vote, and Barudi's motion was rejected by 53 votes to 56, with 19 abstentions.
That is, the vote will not be postponed, and the decisive moment will be that night.
Explanatory statements
In accordance with the rules of procedure, representatives may explain their reasons for voting before voting, but the President of the General Assembly may limit the time for explanation. Malik suggests that the time should not exceed 10 minutes.
The representative of Japan, Eiji Nakagawa, said that the head of the Japanese delegation, Akiichi Aichi, had explained the basic reasons for opposing the two-Arab proposal at this rostrum, and he was willing to reiterate and explain it here.
In fact, Japan was a last-minute co-sponsor of the United States.
The United States needs Japanese support too much. Japan's Asahi Shimbun wrote: Among the influential Western powers, more and more countries are cold to the United States. The United States can only pull fiji, gambia, Lesotho and other small countries with a population of less than one million into the sponsors, giving the impression that the United States "recruited them in spite of human shame", but highlighting the disadvantages of its own camp. There are also some countries that are willing to list them only after asking the attitude of japan, the big money. Therefore, from Nixon down, japan was vigorously mobilized.
Japan and the United States have been closely aligned for more than 20 years, but the "top diplomacy" of the United States has caused a huge impact on Japan, and Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato's hope to visit China was rejected by Zhou Enlai.
Outgoing Japanese Foreign Minister Aichi Ichi once told Bush a chinese idiom story with a confused mood. He said that there was an ancient chinese who said that his spear was the sharpest in the world, and that his shield was the most indestructible in the world, and others asked, what will happen if you poke your shield with your spear? Bush smiled and leaned forward and backward. Aichi told him that the name of the idiom was "self-contradiction."
Despite this, after a night of closed-door thinking, Sato, determined not to hesitate to fail, agreed to remain a co-sponsor.
Once Japan decided, it began a war of backwaters with a posture of fighting harder than the United States. Based on their performance inside and outside the Congress, Japan and the United States jointly set "offensive and defensive targets" for more than 60 countries that have room to fight for work. Aichi kept coming to visit with gifts or inviting them to a fine dining restaurant. The Japanese delegation's station was brightly lit every night, and the midnight box lunches were piled high in the corner of the room, and from Ambassador Nakagawa to the driver, everyone's eyes were bloodshot due to lack of sleep, and they set the stage for the "biggest battle in the history of the United Nations".
There is a message circulating in the United Nations about the extent to which the United States and Japan are doing their work. It is said that there is an island country called M in the Indian Ocean, which has been a supporter of the proposal on important issues in the past, and it was absent from the United Nations General Assembly last year, and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs learned after an investigation that the non-attendance was due to financial reasons, and japan was considering covering the expenses of M country's representatives in the United Nations. More paraphrased, the Nixon administration sent a seaplane to take a delegation from the Maldives Islands to Tokyo and decide whether to take them to New York, depending on their voting attitude.
However, the passage may be purely rumored, or it may be a disguised truth. Subsequent facts showed that there was indeed a State that had supposedly promised to come but had not attended, but not State M.
In his speech, Nakagawa concluded that the proposal by Japan, the United States, and other countries is not intended to create "two Chinas", but is only a transitional measure to face reality, and he believes that the United Nations is a dynamic organization that can find a solution to this problem that affects the peace and security of all countries.
Before concluding his explanatory remarks, he made another procedural proposal to grant priority voting rights in the case of inverse materiality (excluding the double representation case), on the grounds that the procedural proposal should be voted on before the substantive proposal, otherwise one would face a situation in which it was not known whether the proposal had been adopted or rejected.
After him, the representative of El Salvador, Garindo Bohr, took to the stage to explain. El Salvador was a sponsor of the inverse important issue but did not agree to be a double sponsor. Mr. Ball said Taiwan's claim to represent China was a "fictional story," but that the views of the beijing side were also somewhat unrealistic. He did not specify how a vote would be held, only that he would retain the right to change as events unfolded.
The representative of Malaysia, Zakaria, then made it clear that he had voted against the case on important issues of opposition and the case on dual representation, and voted in favour of the two Arab proposals (the previous year had voted against and last year had abstained).
Next, a statement was made by the representative of Austria, Waldheim. He said that the Austrian government had established diplomatic relations with China in May 1971 and therefore could not endorse the proposal of any other government entitled to represent China, and hoped to find a solution through peaceful progress.
In two months, Waldheim will be elected as the new Secretary-General of the United Nations, after U Thant. His next successor was Peruvian Peruvian Perez de Cuéllar, and coincidentally, it was De Cuélal who was the next to take the stage to explain.
Peru is a key focus of the work being done on both sides.
At the time, the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra conducted by Seiji Ozawa was touring New York, and Bush invited De Cuéliar, who loved classical music, to enjoy it with him. After watching the show and having coffee together, Bush started with Seiji Ozawa's birth in China and turned the topic to China, but he did not know that he could not move the ticket for Peru.
More than a month ago, Peru and China launched negotiations on the establishment of diplomatic relations. The talks took place between Peru's ambassador to Canada, De La Fuente, and China's ambassador to Canada, Huang Hua. De La Fuente said it was possible to explicitly recognize that "the government of the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate government in China," but that it was difficult to formulate that "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory." Huang Hua said that considering the practical difficulties of the Secret Side, China agreed to follow the "Canadian way" expression with some flexibility. On the issue of exorcism, Peru said that it is the nature of Latin Americans not to step on those who have fallen to the ground, and the Chinese side agrees to settle it by verbal agreement, but the secret side must ensure that effective measures are taken to promote the departure of Taiwanese official organs. The Chinese agreed to add a sentence to the communiqué: "The Chinese government recognizes Peru's sovereignty over the waters within 200 nautical miles of its coast." "De Cuéllar told Bush that the communiqué had been approved by the president, so Peru must vote for Beijing.
At this moment, as an expert on international law, De Cuélal's explanatory speech from the podium of the General Assembly was gentle and rigorous. He said that the case of reverse important issues used procedure as an excuse to delay an urgent decision. The proposal for dual representation, on the other hand, is legally inconsistent, has no basis in the CHARTER, and will have no political effect. He also admitted that there were some technical reservations to the Arab proposal, since the concept of "expulsion" was not used precisely enough and article 18 of the Charter expressly provided for "expulsion" and could not be applied to the current issue of representation. In conclusion, however, Peru would vote in favour of the two Arab proposals against proposals that would cause difficulties for the speedy resolution of the issue, in particular the double representation case.
Since then, representatives of more than ten countries, including Madagascar, Rwanda, Dahomey and Senegal, have successively spoken on the stage. In their statements, the United States, New Zealand and Australia all called for pre-emption in the Reverse Material Issues case. Barudi demanded pre-emption of the Saudi proposal because "Asians should solve their own problems." Moreover, in view of the fact that not enough attention has been paid to his proposal, he will also retain his amendments to the proposals of the United States and Japan and other countries, and request a paragraph-by-paragraph vote by roll-call. "This is your own trouble, if you are not polite, don't want me to be polite to others." He said.
Key battles
After the explanatory statements, the voting phase will be taken.
Malik announced that, in view of the fact that the Counter-Important Questions case, the Saudi proposal and the Tunisian proposal all called for the right of first refusal, in accordance with the rules of procedure of the United Nations General Assembly, in order of priority, he would first submit the preliminary right to the Counter-Important Question case to the General Assembly for a vote.
There are three voting methods for the General Assembly of the United Nations: the first, a vote by show of hands or standing up; the second, a roll-call vote; and the third, voting by mechanical equipment, which is divided into unrecorded voting (counting only the total number of votes) and recorded voting (requiring the registration of the name of the country). Where a representative requests a roll call and a recorded vote, it is not possible to vote by show of hands or standing up, without record.
At the suggestion of the deputies, the right to pre-emptoly deliberate on the case of inverse important issues should be by roll-call.
Under the desk of the U.S. Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs is a small brown box containing national brand names. He handed the box to Malik, who reached into the box and pulled out a piece, it was the Central African Republic. Roll-call votes begin in the Central African Republic.
Above the podium are two electronic displays with the names of Member States in alphabetical order, with three display lights next to each name, with a green light representing Yes, a red light representing no, and a yellow light representing abstention.
The slightly chubby deputy secretary-general began to roll call, and a loud voice resounded through the hall. He was the first to pronounce the name of the Central African Republic, whose representative answered "yes" aloud and pressed the button of the electronic voting machine on the table at the same time. At the same time, the green light next to the Central African Republic is lit on the display.
The venue was quiet, and most of the delegates were staring intently at the display screens, and some were taking notes on paper.
Soon, the number of voting results appeared on the display: 61 votes in favour, 53 against and 15 abstentions.
There was applause at the scene, and members of the U.S. delegation excitedly clapped their seats in celebration.
Upon questioning, both Driss and Barudi indicated that the procedural proposal should now be voted on, and that they would not claim priority until the substantive voting stage. Thus, the General Assembly began to roll-call votes on the counter-important issue bill.
Everyone knows that this is the real showdown tonight. If the proposal is rejected, it is almost certain that the next two Arab proposals will receive a simple majority vote.
Malik drew lots to Canada. Hence the first vote by Canada.
When Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau took office in April 1968, he said that Canada had been following the United States and was now doing something that the United States did not agree with or dislike, even if it was a tiger's tail. In May 1969, China and Canada began negotiations on the establishment of diplomatic relations in Stockholm, but the talks lasted for a year and a half.
Negotiations get stuck on two issues. Trudeau believes that the recognition of "the government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China" is enough, and as for the issue of Taiwan's status, it is Chinese its own affair and does not need Canada to express its approval or opposition; in addition, On the issue of China's representation in the United Nations, Canada is not willing to "assume obligations in advance". In 1969, Canada still voted in China's "half-vote", and China took a cold approach to the negotiations.
Given the pressure on Canada from the United States, Zhou Enlai agreed to flexibly accept the Canadian way of exposition in adhering to the one-China position, which Mao Zedong approved. In October 1970, China and Canada established diplomatic relations, and the communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations stated: "The Chinese government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Canada has taken note of this position of the Government of China. "Noting" is the "Canadian way" in the history of the establishment of diplomatic relations in New China, which provides a model for many subsequent communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations and opens a breakthrough for China's diplomacy. This is not only due to the "severe threat" of China's possession of nuclear weapons, but also the result of China's vigorous and flexible "smiling diplomacy".
Before the 26th session of the Ungalactic General Assembly, Canadian Foreign Minister Michel Sharp happily told Chinese Ambassador to Canada Huang Hua that they had "nodded their noses" and that the proposal to accept China this year would certainly be passed.
The decisive moment has arrived.
The deputy secretary-general sang "Canada", and the representative of Canada, Borny, solemnly replied: No. Next up are the Central African Republic, Yes; Ceylon, No; Chad, Yes; Chile, No... The chant went on smoothly.
When it came to the United States, no one answered. Bush was leaning sideways to whisper to the deputy in the back row without even hearing the roll call.
Six days ago, United Nations observers said both in Taiwan and the United States had expressed confidence that the Kuomintang would be retained by a four- to six-vote majority, and that the move to take Beijing in was likely to be delayed for at least another year.
Two days earlier, Bush said at a tactical meeting of the co-sponsors that it was estimated that the proposal would "win by one vote." However, there are still more than a dozen small and medium-sized countries whose attitudes are not finally clear, and they are violently shaken between the political pressure and economic means of the United States and Japan and "China's participation in the United Nations is the trend of the world".
As late as the afternoon of the same day, U.S. officials said they believed that the case of reversing important issues would be successful and that "efforts would have good results."
Even Taiwan acknowledges that there can be no doubt about U.S. efforts to make two of its proposals. "China Daily" wrote that President Nixon personally sent a letter to the heads of state, Secretary rogers sat in New York to have earnest talks with foreign ministers, and General Assembly representative Bush even met with delegations of various countries on vacation days. For example, Mauritius' sugar import quota, which was originally 18,000 tons, was suddenly relaxed to 30,000 tons.
When it came to the United States, the vote was drawing to a close, and Bush may have suspected several times that he had heard it wrong, as he later told reporters: "I am not talking about illusory dreams, we may have misunderstood." Some are still firm guarantees. ”
The deputy next to him touched his arm, and he was stunned for a second before he leaned over and pressed the voting machine on the table and shouted "Yes" as if in a dream. The audience laughed, and some of the representatives laughed loudly.
At 9:47 p.m., the number at the top of the electronic display rolled for a few seconds and then froze. 55：59：15。 The proposal on the inverse important issue was rejected by a margin of 4 votes.
In an instant, the conference hall boiled over, and the warm applause and cheers continued. Tanzanian representative Salim, dressed in a zhongshan suit, left his seat and walked to the aisle, dancing with his hands and feet.
The New York Times described the scene this way: Tanzanians, one of Beijing's "field supervisors," jumped from their seats, went to the front row, and danced a victory dance. Algerians, who were one of the co-sponsors of the sponsors, embraced each other. Albanians shook hands with each other solemnly. Everyone else stood up, clapped, and cheered. Rhythmic applause shook the walls.
Malik struck the hammer twice, and the cheers did not abate in the slightest. He approached the microphone, stopped laughing before he could speak, and with a little force he knocked on the mallet three more times, and the venue was still bustling. He smiled and struck the hammer three times, and finally the sound weakened a little, and he was able to announce the result of the vote.
Applause rang out again. A representative noticed that the camera was pulling up close, and excitedly got up and waved at the camera.
The representative of Tunisia, Mr. Dris, had taken the stage to announce that he had put forward those three proposals in view of the possibility of the adoption of the inverse materiality bill, and since they had not been adopted, his delegation had withdrawn them. "We have to accept the fact that we have turned a page in history," he said. ”
Only history can judge how important this moment will be
The situation was reversed, and the representatives and experts in the seats of the United States delegation exchanged heads and ears and engaged in urgent consultations. Japanese representatives Nakagawa and Kase also rushed over to discuss the response.
Bush asked for the floor. He moved to delete the phrase "and immediately expel Chiang Kai-shek's representatives from the seats he illegally occupied in the Organization and all its subordinate organs".
Malik said that the representative of Senegal had previously moved a separate vote on the paragraph, which was now part of the voting process, so the new amendment proposed by Bush was not acceptable at this moment.
At that point, the representative of Senegal, Fall, requested clarification. He said that he had not offered to vote separately on the paragraph, that he had reservations about its "impolite" wording, but that he would still vote in favour of the full text of the proposal.
In accordance with rule 91 of the rules of procedure (the amendment was put to the vote before the proposal itself), Malik ruled that the Saudi amendment should be voted on first.
Baruddi asked for a roll-call vote. The representative of Sierra Leone took the stage to speak against this unnecessary delay.
The meeting has been going on for a long time. Sweden's representative, Riddbek, went outside the hall to catch his breath and whispered to The Canadian representative, Robles, as he walked: "Mr. Barudi should be expelled." Unexpectedly, Barudi heard it and almost scolded him, saying that if he was not polite to him, he would not only insist on roll-call voting on his amendments one by one, but would also submit the paragraphs of any proposal he had selected to the roll-call. Riddbek rushed to the stage to explain, saying that he didn't mean that.
After the interlude, the roll call begins.
For Baruddi's first amendment, only he and the representative of Mauritius voted in favour. In the second amendment, there are still only these two votes in favor. The Third Amendment was then voted on. The representative of Somalia pleaded for a faster recorded vote instead of a roll-call vote, and this time Barudi magnanimously stated that the rest would not be left to vote.
After this exhaustive and fatigue bombardment, it was finally Bush's turn to vote on Bush's motion to delete the phrase "expulsion." At the request of the representative, a recorded vote was used this time. The result of the vote was 51 votes in favour, 61 against and 16 abstentions. The motion was rejected.
At this time, Zhou Shukai, head of the Taiwan delegation, went to the podium and issued a statement. He said that the rejection of the case on the important issue of inverse was a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and that his delegation had now decided not to participate in any meeting of the General Assembly. He thanked the friendly delegations that had given them their full support in the years past and expressed the continued struggle with them in the future for the ideals that had been betrayed.
After Zhou Shukai finished speaking, he walked toward the gate. Liu Kai and the other five members of the delegation also left the table immediately and left with them. Bush suddenly couldn't suppress his emotions, chased after him, and sadly put his arm on Liu Kai's shoulder, saying that he was sorry.
The time has finally come to vote on the two Arab proposals.
At the request of the representatives, the voting was carried out by roll-call, beginning in the Central African Republic, where the drawing of lots was drawn.
The annual voting is more familiar to each other. When a representative of a country that had originally voted against or abstained from voting "defected" and shouted Yes, the venue would immediately burst into applause and laughter.
"Israel!" “Yes！” "Portugal!" “Yes！” "Canada!" “Yes！” Bursts of applause and cheers rang out.
At 11:20 p.m., the numbers on the display stopped jumping. The draft resolution was adopted by 76 votes to 35, with 17 abstentions, becoming United Nations resolution 2758.
On October 25, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to restore all the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China, and the representatives of the countries attending the General Assembly applauded and cheered. Photo/Xinhua
After the two Arab proposals were adopted, the dual representation bill of the United States, Japan, and other countries automatically became an aborted and did not need to be put to a vote. What is particularly touching is that when the important issue case and the reverse important issue case were finally defeated after 22 years, the double-Arab proposal won a two-thirds majority of votes steadily.
During this period, news also came from outside the conference hall that Belgium and the People's Republic of China had announced the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries from their respective capitals.
The longest night was over.
For many years after that, the United Nations spread the legend of Barudi, saying that he helped the American delegation and made great contributions to China.
Henry Tanner, a reporter for the New York Times, later wrote that many diplomats exchanged views afterwards and said that the victory of the two Arab proposal camps was due both to the attitude formed by governments in the canvassing campaign between the two sides over the past few days, and also because of the psychological impact of the atmosphere of the conference venue. One of the most obvious factors unfavorable to the United States is that many governments believe that the position taken by the United States at the United Nations is contradictory to President Nixon's new China policy. "It's easy for you to vote against Beijing, and your president will go there to explain," they said. How will we explain our voting attitude? ”
Bush told reporters: "Some people have given us assurances, but they have not fulfilled them. He did not say names, but others in the United States and Taiwan told Associated Press correspondent William Otis that these countries were Oman, which did not attend, as well as Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar and Cyprus that abstained in the voting. In addition, Belgium abstained instead of voting in favour, and Ireland voted against rather than abstaining, although they had not given assurances.
Those accused are equally aggrieved. Irish Ambassador Cornelius Kerryming said: "I don't know how the United States would think we were going to abstain. ”
The media said that this was the biggest taste of failure in US diplomacy. Many Americans were deeply disappointed and angered by the carnival scene in the Halls of the United Nations. Nixon was so angry that he pounced and turned off the TV. Many people think that what makes some people so excited is just stepping on Uncle Sam. Some U.S. lawmakers have questioned whether the U.S. share of the United Nations' share of the Cost (more than 30 percent at the time) is too high and whether aid to some countries is too much.
Many of the parties turned their lips back. Wouldn't it be the right place, Salim said, if one or two or 60 delegates were willing to spontaneously express their satisfaction in a way that they each saw fit? The representative of Equatorial Guinea said that we should continue to applaud and continue to dance.
U Dan, secretary-general of devout Buddhists, said before leaving office that he was saddened by the departure of the Taiwanese representative, but he called for the adoption of the proposal not to be viewed from the perspective of victory or defeat, not to have any resentment, but to accept "this huge step forward" that has been taken.
After truly calming down, Bush clearly saw and acknowledged that it was clearly a wise move based on long-term interests for the People's Republic of China to join the United Nations and begin diplomatic engagement with it. In 1975, he voluntarily chose to go to China and served as the director of the U.S. Liaison Office in China.
When the delegation of the People's Republic of China came to the United Nations, including Bush, representatives of both sides who agreed with or opposed the two Arab proposals took to the stage and delivered welcome speeches.
In 1971, the five-star red flag of the People's Republic of China flew in front of the United Nations Building. Photo/Xinhua
Hamilton Amerasingh, Permanent Representative of Ceylon to the United Nations, said that today we are celebrating a historic moment in the course of the United Nations. Only history can judge how important this moment will be. The two major economic and social systems of the world are now more fully represented than ever before. There has never been such a great opportunity for the two systems to coexist peacefully and to compete in friendly competition.
He said that he had said that it was not the People's Republic of China that needed the United Nations, but that the United Nations needed the People's Republic of China, but now, more appropriately, they needed each other, because each of us was not an island.