Dear Editor,
I write to provide some historical background and give clarity to comments in a missive captioned, “Setting the record straight on Guyana’s position on the Chinese seat at the UN” (Kiskadee Watch, September 13) by Hamilton Green on Guyana’s position of replacing Taiwan with China with the Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council. Guyana consistently (and wisely) sided with the west on almost all votes at the UN until it established relations with leftwing countries in the 1970s and was punished by Washington. Guyana voted ‘against’ communist China, siding with the western countries until such time that the West gave recognition to Beijing (Peking) as the legitimate government. The West agreed to the change in 1971, and China replaced Taiwan on the UNSC as a Permanent Member in October 1971. Guyana established formal diplomatic relations with China in 1972 after the West changed their position and gave recognition to Peking as the government of China.
The UNSC was created with the UN in 1945 in New York, and the SC held its first meeting in January 1946. The four dominant powers at the time gave themselves a permanent seat, and a permanent seat was reserved for a large “poor” or “developing” or a “South” country. It was given to Taiwan as representative of all of China (inclusive of Taiwan, etc.) The 1949 Communist Revolution in China further complicated matters; the West didn’t want to give the seat to Chairman Mao’s communist government.
In 1950, the US Administration approached India (informally floated) with a proposal to substitute Taiwan with democratic India for the permanent seat on the council, but Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru rejected it outright saying the seat should go to China. The US and the West were trying to court newly born India (independent in August 1947) to side with the western alliance, hence offering the seat. At the time, India’s per capita GDP was comparable with China and had better socio-economic indicators on almost every measurement and was in an ideal position to replace Taiwan. But out of principle, Nehru rebuffed the idea, saying it would be an affront to China to accept the seat.
As a compromise, the USSR made a separate offer, increasing the UNSC to six members with India added. Nehru also rejected this offer still insisting it would be wrong. It is not known what the West’s position on increasing the UNSC at that time to adding India as a sixth permanent member of the council.
Nehru consistently remained committed to China having the UNSC seat, saying the two nations were “bhai-bhai” (brothers). Regrettably, a decade later China would attack India. India appealed to the West for defense and intelligence assistance, but was largely blanked. The Soviet Union came to India’s side with military assistance; this partly explains why India has had close relations with the USSR (Russia).
Over the last two decades, India has advocated for a change in the UNSC permanent structure, adding several large nations like Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and Germany.
Today, the major nations, including China, oppose any expansion of UNSC. Had India accepted the offer of a seat as permanent member on the SC, global politics may well have been different than it is today.