Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512

I would like to discuss the editorials on the recognition of China. Now that we have our General Assembly coming at an end of the year, what is the Times going to say about the matter of the U.N. and China, and the question is raised now as to whether Communist China will eventually get Nationalist China's seat in the Security Council?

One of the things that I'm proud of is that I have done quite a bit toward moving the Times' position on certain important matters in what I think is a more realistic and more progressive line, and China happens to be one of them. Shortly after I came into my office a few years ago, I began to discuss a policy of recognizing China and advocating the admission of China into the United Nations; the policy of the New York Times, I'm speaking of, of course. So, to make a very long and complicated story short, which, of course, in this case, this again reverts to previous discussion we had, in this case certainly involved, very heavily, the publisher, at that time Mr. Dryfoos and Mr. Sulzberger Sr., and the other executive who was brought into this at the time (and this fits in with what I said to you earlier in the interview today), the then general manager, Mr. Bradford. We had a big and long and important discussion, and also Mr. Merz, by the way, the editor emeritus, and what grew out of this was a position which I was very proud that we took, because I feel that it really represented a realistic and sensible view, which was really a two-China policy; a policy of recognizing Communist China as a de facto controlling government in China, of course, retaining Formosa as a separate entity, and also advocating the admission of Continental China to the United Nations, on a two-China basis.