 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Larry Lusser from the CBS television news staff and Richard Wittkin of the United Press. Our distinguished guest for this evening is his Excellency, Dr. Ting Fu-F Chiang, permanent representative from China to the United Nations. Around the head of our guest tonight, gathers one of the world's diplomatic storm clouds. The question, of course, is should his seat at the United Nations be taken by the representative of Communist China? Dr. Ting Fu-F Chiang, now that an agreement has been signed in Indochina, how secure do you think your seat is at the United Nations? The immediate effect of the agreement regarding Indochina on China's seat is very slight. The long-range effect remains to be seen. When the General Assembly released this fall, I anticipate a very hard struggle. I have no doubt that I will win. Well, Dr. Chiang, why do you think that the Chinese Communists are so anxious to get into the United Nations? There is one reason, and one reason only, for the prestige that that seat would confer on them. I see. Well, do you think there would be any use in bringing Communist China into the United Nations to show them up the way the Russians have been showed up by the use of so many vetoes and forcing them to take a stand on issues? I think there are so many other ways of showing them up. So many other ways of forcing them to take a stand on these and that question. I just mentioned the fact of prestige. I like to add, prestige not only with the Chinese people, but prestige throughout the forest. Dr. Chiang, if the question of Communist China taking a seat at the United Nations should be pressed by some of the countries which have recognized Communist China, would you automatically veto it on the Security Council or would you wait for the United States to do it? Not at all. I would immediately veto it. That is in the Security Council. I see. But how about the chances of defeating the move on other organs of the United Nations, like the General Assembly, where there is no veto? Well, we have had that battle more than 100 times already, and every time we have won, I think we will continue to win. Well, let me get this straight. In other words, you don't think the United States would ever have to use its veto on the Security Council because you automatically would veto any move by Communist China to gain a seat there? The veto is an indication of the policy of the government. It is up to the United States to decide whether she will veto or not. But that doesn't mean that my veto would make it unnecessary for the U.S. as number two to cast a veto. Well, do you mean, sir, that there's a legal problem that Nationalist China might be considered procedurally to be an interested party and therefore might not be allowed to vote on such an issue? No, that cannot be done. There's no legal point of that. But I say that veto on the part of any government, any delegate is the indication of that delegation's policy. And we do not say vote differently because all those will vote in some particular way. Well, Dr. Xiang, what makes you think that this question will be vetoable? Suppose it's regarded as a procedural question as the Security Council has agreed, as some of the great powers have agreed in the past, that it's not subject to the veto. You remember when the question came up in the Security Council at the beginning of 1950, I drew the distinction between credentials and right of representation. Credentials may be considered a procedural question. If anybody questions my credentials, that's a procedural question. And all you can do, you have to do is wire to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of China and say, now, does TFCON still represent you? What is at stake? Is the right of a government to representation? That's a vetoable question because that's a question of the highest political importance. Well, Dr. Xiang, you say that you have defeated the question of Communist China's representation on the assembly and other bodies of the UN more than a hundred times. But suppose you failed to defeat it once. Now, would it be legally possible for there to be two China's at the United Nations? National China on the Security Council and Communist China in the General Assembly or some other body of the UN? I don't think that is possible. And I don't think that is desirable, either. I think it's best for the United Nations to face this issue. It must make a decision one way or the other. That's what a compromise, I don't think would get us anywhere. Well, what do you think would happen, Dr. Xiang, if, by some chance, Communist China were voted into the General Assembly, say, where there is no veto? What would happen to the United Nations? What would its future be? Well, I'm sure that many people in the world would lose faith in the United Nations. That would be a big blow to the prestige of the United Nations. Dr. Xiang, there have been people, some congressmen in the United States who have said that they think the United States should withdraw from the United Nations if Communist China were permitted to enter. Now, do you think that National China should withdraw if Communist China got a seat on any of the bodies at the UN? Well, I couldn't answer that question offhand. It depends what sort of body it is. Suppose they've got a seat in some inconsequential body, I don't think we would withdraw. I see. Well, is it possible that there is a solution to the problems of the two Chinas between the problem of the Formosa government and the Mainland government? Could there possibly be an agreement on, we'll say, a trusteeship for Formosa? That's the entire question. You know, to suggest a trusteeship for Formosa would be like, I guess, to make it good, to suggest to the people in New York that they should go back to guess-like. I see. Well, Dr. Xiang, now that we've had this settlement at Geneva of the Indo-China question, where do you think Red China will turn next? I think the world communists, including the Communists of China, will continue to exploit opportunities in Southeast Asia. That region, that Indo-China, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaya, that seems to me to be their primary center of concentration. Do you think Formosa itself is in danger from the Mainland forces of Communist China? No, not so much. Not so much. The reason is because of the ocean between. Red China does not have a military power or a naval power to speak of. Well, Dr. Xiang, is the converse also true? Is there any possibility of Nationalist China invading the Communist China across the straits from Formosa? That's our plan. We want to do it. I cannot tell you when that will take place. I can assure you it will eventually take place. But it would demand naval forces from your allies, principally the United States, I take it. My own idea is that my government should acquire the power of independent offensive. Do you think Dr. Xiang that Red China will ever engage in open aggression, the way the North Koreans did across the 38th parallel, or do you think that their aggression will continue to be aggression by subversion, you might say? I think in Southeast Asia, the pattern they'll continue to use is the one they have used in Indochina. Well, in that case, what can the West do to prevent these more subtle forms of aggression where you don't have a clear open and shut case of aggression? Well, the Western world can do several things. One, you must give the threatened peoples positive assurance that you are behind them. Secondly, you and other free countries show those people and get their own governments, their own authorities to work a plan whereby those peoples can be convinced that human beings have better ways of achieving their better standard living than by way of communism. Dr. Xiang, as an official of the Formosa Nationalist Government of China, what is your personal opinion of the agreement that has been reached in Indochina with the Vietnamese communists and the Red Chinese communists? I myself think it is a great mistake. First of all, you have the material losses and gains to think of. Twelve million people, so much territory and coal mine, tungsten, warfram in North Vietnam. These are material gains or losses. Then on the other hand, the immaturity, the invisible losses to the free world are immense. The free world has lost the confidence to a considerable degree of all the people in that region. And the morale of all these peoples has received a very severe blow. Oh, today, when you think that Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Viet Minh, nine years ago started with almost nothing and got today half of Vietnam. Now, with half of Vietnam, how much he can do in another nine years? Dr. Xiang, the world is in a state of momentary peace right now. How long do you think that state of security can last? That's a very difficult question. The difficulty comes this way. Nowadays, it's difficult to tell whether we do or do not have peace. Take from this war in China. The American people have become aware of it in only the last two or three years. But as a matter of fact, that war has been going on for nine years, ever since Japan surrendered. That's the reason why it's very difficult to answer a question of this or of your kind. But if you should mean a big war, a third world war, I must say, I have no answer to that. I don't think anybody can answer that. Thank you very much, Dr. Xiang. It's been very interesting to hear your comments tonight. The opinions expressed on the Long Jean Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Jean Chronoscope was Larry Le Sur and Richard Whitkin. Our distinguished guest was His Excellency Dr. Ting Fu-F Cheung, permanent representative from China to the United Nations. Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, is world renowned for technical excellence. In each Long Jean watch, the qualities of greater accuracy and long life are permanently inbuilt through scientific design and faultless workmanship. As a matter of fact, a Long Jean watch, when properly cared for, improves with use, is better after five or even ten years than it was when you. Now, the purchase of a Long Jean watch is consequently a long-term investment in satisfaction. It's because of technical excellence that Long Jean watches have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy in observatory competitions, in sports, in aviation, and in science. When you buy a Long Jean watch for yourself or as an important gift, you buy one of the finest watches in all the world, and yet there are many beautiful models for ladies and gentlemen priced as low as seventy-one fifty. And remember that if you pay seventy-one fifty or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Long Jean. So, why not insist on getting a Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Long Jean Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Long Jean and Wittner watches are sold in service from coast to coast by more than four thousand leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Long Jean Wittner Watches. At Long Jean Wittner Jewelers, see Atmos, the perpetual motion clock created by Lecoultre. Atmos runs without winding, without electricity, powered only by variations in the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmos, product of Lecoultre, division of Long Jean Wittner.