My first discovery upon reading it was that the Americans make no attempt to base their conduct upon a principle of some sort, however dubious it might be, but are honest enough to admit that national interests and expediency are at the base of it.

". . . the policy of the United States Government," I read, "towards Red China has necessarily been based on objective considerations of national interest." Elsewhere—"recognition would produce no tangible benefits to the United States or to the free world as a whole."

All along I have suspected that American imperialism and "spheres of influence" diplomacy is the real reason why the U.S. refuses to recognise Communist China. Now the Americans have themselves admitted it. Surely the conclusion that recognition is contrary to Western interests is naive.

Sir Clifton also said categorically that the non-admission of Communist Chinese representatives to the United Nations was preventing the easing of international tension.

Startlingly Candid

Another startlingly candid admission by the Amercians is the view that "diplomatic recognition is a privilege and not a right." How absurd this is, is clear on a moment's reflection. If every nation adopted a similar attitude, all international comity and co-operation would immediately break down.

The Americans also rely upon the Chinese confiscation without compensation of the properties of foreign nationals, including immense British investments.

Conveniently no mention is made of the confiscation by the British and others of Chinese national resources in years not so far back. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

As one would expect, much is made of the Chinese intervention in the Korean War. Sir Clifton Webb also deftly exposed the weaknesses of this argument.

"During the Korean War seven or eight years ago there were grounds for refusing to recognise the Chinese Communist regime and to admit its representatives into the United Nations, because at that time it had been declared by the Security Council to be guilty of aggression contrary to the provisions of the Charter. But it is surely ludicrous to suggest that the Chinese Nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek virtually in exile on the island of Formosa (or Taiwan) should be allowed to speak for the whole of the Chinese nation numbering something like 600 million people, or at any rate should be allowed to exercise the veto which was accorded to China as one of the 'Big Five' at the time when the United Nations was formed."

Sir Clifton Webb is right when he says the American position is ludicrous. Indeed, it is more than that. It is hypocritical. The Americans build a case upon Chinese aggression in Korea, but make no mention of their own act of aggression in Lebanon, nor of similar acts by the Israelis, British and French in Egypt.

Exclusive Club

The Americans incidentally have not exhausted all the fanciful arguments they could have used. An American admiral in attempting to justify the exclusion of Communist China has likened the United Nations to an exclusive club. Sir Clifton Webb also deftly refutes this bit of nonsense. In his view the true comparison is with a public meeting from which you don't (or shouldn't) exclude a man because you don't like his political philosophy.

I would recommend the pamphlet to anybody who would like a good laugh.

—T.J.K.