Part: 1234         Session: 12         Page 34353637383940414243444546474849505152535455 of 512

I imagine sooner or later there will be, although oddly enough I've had a harder time -- or it seems to me to be harder to make some progress -- on this than on the recognition question. Of course, we all realized that in the terms -- and I, too, am very much aware of this -- in which we are proposing recognition, or for that matter in which I would propose admission to the U.N., Communist China almost surely will not accept it. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the position of the United States being unrealistic, and this is what I felt the Times ought to do its part in, to encourage the United States Government to take what I consider at least a more realistic position in respect to China, even though Communist China will not accept this position because it involves two Chinas. And what I'm advocating is essentially a two-China policy.

Did that editorial appear on a Saturday?

No, it did not appear on a Saturday; it certainly did not. It appeared during the week, but it did appear between Christmas and New Year's, which is not such a good time of year, but that was only coincidental. Really, the timing was purely accidental. It came in that day to me, as I say, without any immediate prior discussion. It came in after the close of the U.N session. This had something to do with it.

Was it from a member of the Editorial Board or from someone else in the Times?

It was very definitely from a member of the Editorial Board. I'd rather not state who was the author. It was not myself, incidentally.