The International Red Cross Conference is the coordinating authority of the world wide Red Cross movement. Every four years it brings together representatives of National Red Cross Societies, the League of Red Cross Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross and official delegates of states signatory to the Geneva Conventions to receive reports from the Red Cross Committees and Agencies, to consider proposals for extension and improvement of Red Cross services and to promote humanitarian and pacific ideals of the Red Cross movement with specific reference to the Geneva Conventions. Ninety-one governments (including Canada) party to the Geneva Conventions and 77 recognized National Red Cross Societies have been invited to attend the New Delhi Conference. The Communist Chinese are sending both Governmental and Society Delegations and it is possible that North Korea, North Vietnam and Outer Mongolia may send delegations, although this is as yet uncertain. The Nationalist Chinese have refused to attend because their invitation was addressed to the Government of Formosa rather than to the Government of the Republic of China. Similar considerations prompted the Nationalist Chinese to withdraw from the 18th International Red Cross Conference held in Toronto in 1952.

Delegations of the National Red Cross Societies from countries signatory to the Geneva Conventions have voting status at the Conference. Delegations of governments which are parties to the Conventions can have either voting or observer status. The Delegation of the Canadian Government to the 18th Conference in Toronto, like those of the United States and United Kingdom Governments, had observer status but this time, in common with our NATO partners, we have sent a voting Delegation because certain items on the agenda conflict with basic NATO strategy and provide the Communist Delegations (which are invariably voting Delegations) with disturbing possibilities for propaganda exploitation.

3. At the XVIIIth International Red Cross Conference in Toronto there was considerable acrimonious debate on the accreditation of Communist Chinese and East German Delegations. This problem was disposed of by a vote in plenary session confirming the action taken by the Standing Commission in extending invitations to both Governments and Societies and indicating the respective capacities in which they should attend.

4. We are considering the instructions for the Canadian Government Delegation at the Red Cross Conference in New Delhi in case a vote becomes necessary on the seating of Chinese, North Korean, North Vietnamese, Outer Mongolian and East German Delegations. We have in mind instructing the Delegation to make every effort to see that the precedent established at the previous conference in Toronto in 1952 is followed again this year. This approach has several advantages to commend it: it is favoured by a large number of countries (amongst which it may be expected that India and the United Kingdom will be numbered); it takes politics out of a conference which should be essentially non-political in nature; it permits the representatives of areas whose régimes we do not recognize to participate in the conference without the necessity of a direct vote on the accreditation of individual delegations.¹³⁰ Furthermore, it is in our interest to have the attendance at the conference as universal as possible since it enables us to bind (as far as it is possible to bind them) our potential enemies as well as our friends to Red Cross conventions of which we approve.

5. If the Canadian and other favourably disposed delegations are not successful in their endeavours to have the Conference follow the 1952 precedent and votes are forced on the seating of individual delegations, the Canadian Delegation has been instructed to vote against accreditation of an East German voting delegation in accordance with our NATO commitments. However, Communist China does not fit the East German pattern and we think there is a case for adopting a slightly different policy in the case of Communist China.

6. While there may be practical reasons for wanting to bind East Germany to Red Cross practices the fact is that we are committed by our NATO association with the Federal Republic of Germany to a very rigid policy with respect to East Germany. Any indication of flexibility on our part with regard to the recognition of the validity of the East German régime would be contrary to our understandings with the West Germans and with our NATO partners and would provoke very severe criticism. The situation with regard to Communist China, however, is different. The régime is recognized by some of our Commonwealth partners and other close friends and we have no international commitments on this subject to observe. The difference which might be made in this context between the Communist Chinese Government and the Governments of East Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam and Outer Mongolia is that the Chinese régime is clearly an independent authority with control over Mainland China whereas the other régimes are much more clearly puppet régimes in divided countries. When, as in this case, there are practical advantages in seeking to bind the Chinese Communists to the Geneva Conventions there are not the same legal arguments against doing so which exist in the case of these other régimes. The Chinese Communists did at an early stage in the Korean war undertake to abide by the Geneva Conventions on the handling of prisoners of war and did on the whole make reasonable efforts to carry out their undertaking. (It was the North Koreans rather than the Chinese who were guilty of most of the brutalities practised on prisoners during the Korean war.) There is therefore some point in trying to encourage Communist China to carry out its responsibilities under Red Cross Conventions in any future wars that might occur.

7. The situation with reference to the Chinese Communist Delegation in this Conference is unique because of the nature of the Red Cross. It doesn't necessarily follow therefore that the Canadian position on Chinese representation need be exactly the same as it has been in the United Nations or in other official conferences. Our policy in accepting the Chinese Communists at the Toronto Conference in 1952 was not intended to set any precedent for subsequent policy at inter-governmental conferences. The Red Cross Conference includes a combination of governmental and non-governmental representatives and is directed towards practical and humanitarian objectives. There would be no valid legal argument that acceptance by Canada of a Communist Chinese Delegation at this Conference would imply recognition. Canada has in fact already participated in an inter-governmental conference with a Communist Chinese Delegation the Geneva Conference on Korea in 1954.

8. Under these circumstances Iwould recommend that Canada might abstain on a vote in favour of Communist Chinese voting representation. There is an argument for our voting in favour but in view of our general policy vis-à-vis Communist China you might consider it wiser at this point to abstain. Even a decision to abstain, however, should be conditional on our being in good company in doing so. We have not yet been able to determine the attitude which will be adopted by our principal allies. The United States might be expected to vote against but the United Kingdom and other friendly countries may well vote in favour.

9. 9. Ishould recommend for your approval that the Delegation be instructed in the first place to work for a continuation of the 1952 precedent of confirming invitations issued by the Standing Commission and, failing that, to abstain on a vote in favour of seating a voting Communist Chinese Delegation and to vote against seating voting Delegations from North Korea, North Vietnam and Outer Mongolia provided that we are not left in a position of isolation from other Western powers in our attitude to the Chinese Delegation.

J. L[ÉGER]

¹³⁰ Note marginale:/Marginal note:
OK S.E. Smith]