 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 Lisser from the CBS television news staff, and August Heckscher, chief editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable Ernest A. Gross, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. For now on until next fall, when the United Nations Assembly meets and the Congressional elections take place, this country will be faced by a continuing question. Can we keep Red China out of the United Nations? Now our guest tonight has probably had more experience in fighting the battle of and against Red China's entry, and successfully I may say, than any other man. Mr. Gross, we'd like to ask you, as our former Ambassador to the United Nations, what do you think our present chances of keeping China out are at the moment? I feel very confident that the Communist Chinese government will not win its seat in the United Nations, either in the General Assembly when it reconvenes or in the Security Council. And I believe that will be impossible because the great majority of the countries in the world, I think this applies to the Western European countries, to all of Latin America, and now with perhaps no exceptions, the British Commonwealth and several countries in Asia and several countries in the Middle East will oppose the Chinese Communist representation in the United Nations. But Mr. Gross, for example, in 1950 before Korea, was there any comparable United sentiment against the admission? It was not nearly as strong. In the Security Council in 1950 before Korea, the Chinese Communists came very, very close indeed to winning a seat on the Security Council. There is no doubt that in the General Assembly there was strong sentiment in favor of seating the Chinese Communists. Mr. Gross, are we against the Red China's entry in the UN because she's an aggressor now or because we hope someday to overthrow her revolutionary government? The problem of representation of a member state such as China is a different problem than the one of admitting a state into membership in the United Nations. It seems like a technical difference, but under the charter of the United Nations it's a very important distinction. You mean China is already a member of the United Nations? China is already a member of the United Nations. The question is, who is to represent China? Now China now has a representative. In the Security Council, the representative is Dr. TF Jiang, who is a very able and distinguished one of the leaders of the free world cause in the United Nations. He remains the representative of China until he's replaced. In the General Assembly, the delegations of the Nationalist Chinese Government have been very distinguished. They would be replaced by the Communist Chinese if they won their seat. Mr. Gross, when you were our ambassador to the United Nations, you said that the admission of Red China to the United Nations or the ousting of Nationalist China was not subject to the veto, but the present Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, says it is subject to the veto. How do you explain that? In January of 1950, on instructions from the government, I did announce that the position of the United States government was that we were opposed to the admission of Red China to the Security Council, but that we would accept a majority decision. You didn't say there that a veto was impossible. You said you didn't want to use the veto. Well, we said that we would accept the decision. Actually, our position was based upon a very simple and logical point. The fact of the matter is that the charter of the United Nations provides that procedural questions in the Security Council are not subject to the veto. The question of who represents a member state has been regarded as a procedural question. There is a very simple common sense reason why, because if a permanent member of the Security Council, one of the so-called big five, had the right to veto in the case of who represented a government who was on the Security Council, then my good friend Dr. TF Xiang, I hope he stays on the Council for a long, long time. But Dr. Xiang, the nationalist Chinese representative, could veto his own replacement because he represents China. China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and therefore there would be no chance of his being replaced. The question of the United States using its veto would never arise. The Chinese would probably use it themselves. Does this mean, Mr. Gross, that if Guatemala's new government were on the Security Council, that Russia would veto it? Well, that's an interesting point because if Guatemala were a member of the Security Council and the communists, the Soviets, did not like the new government, they would veto the replacement of the representative of the former government of Guatemala. So, there are very practical reasons, therefore, why we should rely upon the straight majority principle and not get into the complications which would be caused by the application of the veto, which I think is unnecessary in any event. Well, nevertheless, in the Assembly, what sort of a vote will be needed there to keep Red China out? Well, under the majority of 31, the simple majority or two- Well, under the shorter of the United Nations, it provides that in the General Assembly votes on important questions have to be taken by a two-thirds majority. So, how do you decide, yes, what is an important question? Well, the procedure is that the majority of the members of the Assembly decide whether or not it is important. If the majority decides it is an important question, then it requires a two-thirds vote to carry a proposition. I have no doubt that the problem of the representation of China would be regarded by a majority of the members as an important question and therefore would be subject to the two-thirds vote. Well, isn't all this discussion rather backwards? Wouldn't the vote come up on the ousting of Formosa of the Nationalist Chinese Government before Red China could be seated? Well, what happens in the General Assembly is that each time there is a session of the Assembly, both rival candidates present their credentials, you see, so that the Credentials Committee, which is appointed each time the Assembly begins its session once a year, has to pass upon which contestant, which competitor is entitled to the seat for that government. Has Red China actually been doing that? Red China has been sending telegraphic communication. They have not been given visas to appear in person at the UN headquarters, but they have been sending a cable regularly and dutifully each time the General Assembly convenes and claiming the seat. Would you actually feel or did you feel during your representation at the United Nations that a communist Russia actually wanted Red China to be a member of the UN? Well, I felt that while I was in the UN, I could never read the mind of the Kremlin. I believe that they have acted consistently as if they wanted the Red Chinese alongside them in the Security Council. And I believe that that's the case. I think it's kind of subtle to look for reasons. Mr. Gross, are there conditions which can be laid down and made clear to the world on which we would admit Red China at some future time? Is there some pattern of behavior to which it would have to conform? Well, it's important to try to define the reasoning there. Of course, our basic point must be that we should not support the admission of Red China to the UN unless and until we consider it to be on our national entries to do so. Now, in the future, in the indefinite future, if we say that we shall never under any circumstances support Red China's admission to the UN, we are trying to out-guess our own national interest. My own conviction is that we should not support the admission of Red China to the United Nations until and unless we decide that our support of their admission to the UN is more likely to induce them to change their course of conduct and to compliance with the standards of civilized behavior. Mr. Dulles has said that the UN is not a reformatory, so letting them into the UN would not reform them. They have to purge themselves first. The UN is not a reformatory. I quite agree. I think it's more like a hospital. It's supposed to reflect the state of the world, as Mr. Dulles pointed out in his very excellent book, Retina 1950, War or Peace. And it is, of course, supposed to be, by design, a fair reflection of the divisions and tensions of the world. I do not myself draw much of a distinction between communist China and communist Russia so far as bad behavior is concerned. Do you think, Mr. Gross, that if some sort of agreement is reached in Indochina as seems possible from the news we've had recently, that the chances of Red China's entry into the United Nations will be better? Well, I think that there will be more pressure on the part of countries, some of whom are now, of course, teetering on the edge of supporting communist China. Those countries which have recognized communist China, there are some 14 to 16, I don't recall the exact number, have not, by and large, voted to admit Red China to the UN, to seat Red China. But it is true that the closer the Chinese communists come in the future, if they come to compliance with the standards of international behavior, there will be pressures to seat them. Well, actually, if this pressure gets very strong and it appears as though Red China will become a member of the United Nations, do you think we should withdraw or what would happen if the United States actually walked out of it? I just don't believe we will walk out of the United Nations. That would lead to a fragmentation of not of the United Nations, but of our national policy of slendifying the free world. We cannot possibly break up the United Nations without reverting to the age-old balance of power of principle and practice, which has inevitably led to war. We have to do what has been called develop a community of power. I don't think the United Nations is really working as well as it should. I think that the Russians have obstructed it from the beginning, but we must, it seems to me, persevere in the effort to solidify the free world, and we can only do it through collective action. Thank you very much, Mr. Gross. We appreciate having you here tonight. The opinions expressed on the Launcine Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Launcine Chronoscope was Larina Sir and August Hector. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Ernest A. Gross, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Assistant Secretary of State. Big League Baseball is one of the many sports timed by Launcine, the world's most honored watch. All umpires of both national and American leagues use Launcine watches for timing all games, including the All-Star Game and the World Series. The fact is that Launcine is official for timing championship sports events throughout the world. Official watch for the contest board is the American Automobile Association, the National Aeronautics Association, the American Power Boat Association, and many, many other leading sports and contest associations. Now why is this so? The answer is, Launcine's great accuracy and complete dependability. The fact is that in some 75 years of accuracy competitions at government observatories, Launcine watches have consistently maintained a place of honor, established many records, won countless prizes and awards. These are but some of the reasons why Launcine is deservedly known as the world's most honored watch, the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of the world, and why discriminating people in 100 countries have found the name Launcine the first word in buying a fine watch, the last word in accuracy, dependability and complete satisfaction. And yet you may buy and own or proudly give a Launcine watch for as little as 7150. Launcine the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Launcine Witner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Launcine and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Launcine Witner watches. At Launcine Witner 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 Launcine Witner.