Mr. President:
I note with much regret that the tone of the debate in this session has sometimes degenerated to a very low level. The speech of the Soviet representative is an example of what I have in mind. He imagined that this Assembly was a huge, ignorant mob not knowing reason or logic. All he did was to arouse our emotions. In my humble opinion that speech is unworthy of the United Nations. It is a disservice to this great Organization because it destroys mankind's respect for this great institution in which we all repose our hopes.
The General Assembly has now before it for consideration that part of the report of the General Committee relating to the request of the Soviet Union for the inclusion in our agenda of the so-called question of the representation of China in the United Nations. The General Committee has by a resolution recommended the rejection of the Soviet request. We have also a proposal by the delegation of Nepal which seeks to reverse the recommendation of the General Committee.
My delegation supports the recommendation of the General Committee and appeals to all delegations to do the same. We are convinced that the Soviet proposed item does not deserve consideration by the General Assembly.
The purpose of the Soviet request for an item on the representation of China is to exclude my delegation from the United Nations and to give the seat of China to the representatives of the Chinese Communist regime.
The Soviet speaker called me a corpse. He thought that a corpse should not be included in this Assembly. Well, he has been accustomed to burying people. I do not think that is the truth. Such a change in the representation of China in the United Nations, as proposed by the Soviet Union, would have both immediate and permanent consequences of the most serious kind. For the immediate future such a change would add to the prestige of the Chinese Communist regime both domestically and internationally. That added prestige would be used for the further repression of the Chinese people and the further subversion and aggression by the Chinese Communists against China's neighbors. Such a change is therefore both against the interests of the Chinese people and the interests of peace and security in the Far East.
My Government is one of the founders of the United Nations. We have steadfastly fulfilled all the obligations of membership. In the work of the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, as well as in the Assembly, my delegation has always joined with other peace-loving delegations to uphold the ideals of the United Nations. Nobody has ever criticized my Government for failure in the fulfillment of obligations to the United Nations. My Government has as record here as honorable as that of any other Member State. There is no reason to subject the right of representation of my Government in the United Nations to question or debate.
I know that the Soviet Union and the other Communist States in this Organization assert that the Chinese Communist regime is the Government of 600 million people on the mainland of China. The memorandum of the Soviet delegation relating to this subject speaks of the so-called State system established on the mainland of China and of the eleven years of existence of the Chinese Communist regime. This is the argument of so-called realism or facing-the facts. I wish to ask the Assembly to examine this argument on both moral and political grounds.
Of course, there is the Communist regime on the mainland of China. What is important for this Assembly to note about that regime is that it is un-Chinese in origin and un-Chinese in character and purpose.
The Communist regime on the mainland of my country is the creation of the so-called Chinese Communist Party. That Party was organized forty years ago, shortly after the Soviet regime was established in Moscow. It was organized under the direct leadership of Gregori Voitinsky, a Russian Communist agent sent from Moscow. In 1921, another Russian Communist by the assumed name of Maring came to China to help it develop and expand. The so-called Chinese Communist Party was born of Soviet parentage and has ever since been nourished by the Soviets.
Using the Chinese Communist Party as its tool, the Soviet Union began its career of intrigue and aggression in my country. For the past forty years, the Chinese people have experienced all the Soviet methods of aggression that have been practiced in many other lands. We have witnessed Communist infiltration, subversion, and incitement to civil strife. At times, the Communists made offers of "peaceful coexistence" when it was necessary to consolidate their gains and to prepare for the next move. And surely the next move would come, more intensified, after the people's will to resist had been softened and weakened.
The climax of Soviet aggression in China came immediately after World War II was ended. Members of the Assembly may recall that a few days before Japan had accepted the terms of peace offered by the Allies, a Soviet army entered the Northeastern Provinces of China, commonly called "Manchuria", nominally to fight Japan, but really to fight against my Government and to give military aid to the Chinese Communists. I had occasion to present some of these facts of Soviet aggression against China to the General Assembly at its fourth, fifth and sixth sessions when the item of Soviet aggression against my country was under discussion. I do not want to repeat that long story. It is on the records of the United Nations. I wish, however, to draw the attention of the General Assembly, that this Assembly after having examined these facts, came to certain grave decisions. By its resolution 505 (VI), adopted on 1 February 1952, the General Assembly finds, and I am quoting the language of the resolution:
"that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic obstructed the efforts of the National Government of China in re-establishing Chinese national authority on the three Eastern Provinces (Manchuria) after the surrender of Japan and gave military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists against the National Government of China."
That is how the Communist system was established on the mainland of China. On the one hand, the Soviet Army then in occupation of the Manchurian provinces obstructed the efforts of my Government to establish national authority in that critical region of my country. On the other hand, the Soviet Army supplied both military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists who were then fighting against my Government. This Chinese Communist regime, born in such circumstances, is the creature of Soviet subversion and aggression against my country.
In asking the General Assembly at the present session to consider the question of Chinese representation, the Soviet Union is in fact asking the United Nations to put its seal of approval on the fruits of Soviet subversion and aggression against my country. I believe it is a moral wrong and a political blunder for the United Nations ever to put its moral approval on such a development. This Organization was established to prevent aggression, not to encourage and reward aggression.
During the past eleven years the Soviets have continued to give military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists. A recent example of such support is found in the fact that 170,000 shells which the Chinese Communists fired into Quemoy and other off-shore islands during the recent State visit of President Eisenhower to my country were all of Soviet manufacture.
Since the Communist regime was set up in Peiping eleven years ago, it has itself repeatedly committed aggression against the Asian neighbors of China. The first year of its existence had barely run out when the Communist regime intervened in the Korean War. For its aggression in Korea the Communist regime in China stands condemned by the General Assembly. The Chinese Communists have also committed aggression in Vietnam and Laos, either directly or indirectly. Furthermore, they have engaged in infiltration and subversion in the Philippines, Thailand and Malaya; and more recently they are trying their hand even in Latin America and Africa.
The Chinese Communists have no respect for treaty obligation. They broke the armistice agreements in Korea and Indo-China as soon as they were signed.
Can this General Assembly consider awarding a seat to such a regime for its aggression and still uphold the principles of the United Nations?
The Soviet representative in his statement took pride in the so-called "peaceful foreign policy" of the Chinese Communists. Are those acts of the Communist regime a manifestation of this "peaceful foreign policy"?
The General Assembly will recall that last winter the Chinese Communists engaged in armed hostilities in their border dispute with India—a country which cannot be considered as hostile to them and with which they have loudly proclaimed the so-called "five principles of peaceful coexistence". Is that a manifestation of the "peaceful foreign policy"?
Domestically, the Communist regime is repressive and terroristic. To maintain its tyrannical rule it has resorted to the brutal methods of killing, enslaving and brain-washing people. Recently it has instituted the militant and inhuman system of the so-called "people's communes" over all the mainland provinces of China. Earlier this year the commune was extended to the large cities, where the people had been spared at the earlier stage. In the communes human beings are reduced to the status of animals in a zoo.
The wanton violations by the Chinese Communists of human rights in Tibet are well known to the General Assembly. Last year representatives of many Member States came to this rostrum to condemn such acts of the Chinese Communists. The General Assembly's resolution has been contemptuously ignored. I shall have more to say on this subject when the item of Tibet comes under consideration again this year. Can the General Assembly give consideration to the seating of the Chinese Communists and still claim to be true to the principles of the United Nations Charter which solemnly affirms:
"faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person"?
The General Assembly is probably not unaware of the political views expressed by the Chinese Communists. In an article entitled "Long Live Leninism!", which appeared in the 16 April 1960 issue of "The Red Flag", organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, it is declared:
"In the end the Socialist system will replace the capitalist system. This is an objective law independent of human will. No matter how hard the reactionaries may try to prevent the wheel of history, revolution will take place sooner or later and will surely triumph."
To replace the capitalist system with the Communist system, or, in other words, to communize the entire world, is the only way in which the Chinese Communists, with their comrades in other countries, see the final settlement of all problems, international or domestic. I do not know whether this coincides with the wish of those who preach realism and champion the participation of the Chinese Communists in the settlement of international problems.
To sum up, consideration by the General Assembly of the Soviet item is, in the judgment of my delegation, contrary to the interests of the Chinese people and contrary to the interests of the United Nations. It would only serve the interests of the Soviet Union and international communism.
The Government of the Republic of China, which I have the honor to represent, is the only Government which can speak for China and the Chinese people. The custodian of Chinese culture and tradition, my Government is the spiritual focus and the political rallying point of the Chinese people not only in Taiwan but all over the world, including the 600 million on the mainland, who love freedom and cherish their spiritual heritage. It is the sacred mission of my Government to help our brethren on the mainland in their ever mounting struggle to throw off the tyrannical Communist yoke and regain freedom.
In the tragic circumstances forced on us, we do expect that the United Nations should at least give moral support to the Chinese people in their struggle for peace, justice and freedom and refrain from giving aid and comfort to the oppressor of the Chinese people and disturber of peace in the Far East.
The cry of the 600 million people on the mainland of China today is: "Out with the Communist regime!" Let the United Nations respect the wishes of the 600 million Chinese people and say likewise: "Keep out the Chinese Communist regime."
(II)
Mr. President:
In the long debate of the so-called question of Chinese representation, representatives of eastern European countries have taken a very prominent part. They did this last year. They have said the same things this year as they said last year. They repeat each other. Together, they repeat the statements of the Soviet delegation.
There is no need on my part to make a lengthy reply. I would like, first of all, to remind the representative of Poland that, in the eighteenth century, the Emperor of China was one of the few heads of State at that time who protested the partition of Poland. The protest was addressed to the Tsarina of Russia, commonly styled Catherine the Great. The document now rests in the central archives of Moscow. In those dark hours for Poland in the eighteenth century, China raised her voice in protest against Poland's oppressor. If the representative of Poland should be ignorant of this fact or should just deliberately choose to ignore it, I hope the people of Poland will not forget it, for at bottom, the people of Poland and the people of China today are fighting the same fight, namely, the fight for national and personal freedom. They are fighting against the same enemy, the new imperialism of Moscow.
Since the representative of Poland is not free to speak on behalf of the people of Poland, and since I am free to speak for the 600 million people of China, I would like to say this: the Chinese people extend their hand of friendship to the Polish People and pledge the support of China in the Polish struggle for Polish freedom.
What I have just said about Poland I would like to say likewise about Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine and Byelorussia.
In making a reply to the representatives of eastern Europe, I labor under certain difficulties. In the first place, I do not know whether what they have said is really what they think; and, secondly, what do the peoples of eastern European countries think of these, their representatives? However, I wish only to call their attention to the large historical prospective. The cause of Chinese freedom and the cause of freedom in the eastern European countries are inextricably linked together. Whether we admit it or not, we are fighting for the same cause and against the same enemy. The only difference is geographical. Whereas we Chinese fight to the East of the Soviet Union, the people of eastern Europe fight to the West of the Soviet Union. Although we occupy different fronts, the cause and the enemy are the same. Success on one front will make the fight on other fronts easier. In the long run—that is, in the long run of history - China and eastern Europe must rise or sink together.
Now let me turn to the speeches of the neutralist countries.
India has chosen to take a prominent part in this debate. On Monday morning the Prime Minister of India devoted part of his speech in the general debate to the so-called question of Chinese representation. Monday evening the Defence Minister of India spoke again at great length.
Mr. Nehru, as is his wont, spoke from the heights of Olympus and took up the lofty themes of world peace and human freedom. He took a large sweep over the world, from Outer Mongolia to Algeria. But I was surprised that the great leader of India could not spare a single word for human rights and freedom in Tibet, which is right next door to India. The omission was, of course, deliberate. How it can be explained I do not know. Certainly it cannot be justified on the ground of principle. I doubt that it can be justified even on the ground of expediency.
The Prime Minister of India wishes to have the Chinese Communists take the seat of China in the United Nations. Evidently he thinks that communism, while not good enough for India, is good enough for China. Or he may think that the Chinese people have accepted communism. Or he may speculate that, whether the Chinese people have accepted communism or not, nothing can be done about it. It is, he will say, the Communist regime which rules over the mainland of China and over 600 million people. That, if I understand him aright, is his line of thinking.
The Chinese people have not accepted the Communist regime. Communism is un-Chinese in origin and un-Chinese in character. The communist regime on the mainland of China has maintained itself by brutal force. The Chinese people are fighting that regime. The farmers fight it with their fists, their working tools - their spades and forks. They kill the communist cadres who come to the village to collect taxes or to enforce the compulsory purchase of grain. They burn the granaries of the Communist regime - those granaries where the grain, the product of the sweat of the farmer, which the farmer would like to put in his stomach and in the stomachs of his children, is stored only to be shipped to Siberia in exchange for Soviet machines, jet aircraft, tanks and guns. Much of this food stored in the public granaries rots there because of the inefficiency and corruption of the newly privileged class in China. Although China has had terrible tyrannical regimes in the past, none can compare with the present communist regime. But in the past all such tyrannical regimes, seemingly very powerful, almost indestructible, quickly crumbled before the wrath and vengeance of the people. So will this regime.
India, under the leadership of Mr. Nehru, has chosen the path of neutralism or non-involvement in the power struggle and ideological conflicts of the present age. This is India's privilege; it is India's exercise of India's sovereignty. Whether such a policy is wise or not, I do not presume to say. But if India should choose, as it has chosen, the path of non-involvement, why should India involve itself in the struggle in my country between the Nationalists and the Communists? If India is not willing to lend a helping hand to the 600 million people fighting for their freedom, India can at least remain neutral.
So far as the China question is concerned, India's policy is not really neutralism. It is the policy of appeasement of the Chinese Communists at the expense of the Chinese people. I humbly submit that such a policy is shortsighted. I had hoped that the harsh experience of the last two years, beginning with Tibet and then extending to the very frontiers of India, might have led India to see the short-sightedness of the policy of appeasement. Let me say once and for all that the cause of freedom cannot be separated from the cause of peace and security in Asia. So long as the Chinese Communist regime remains in power, none of China's neighbours can really feel secure and enjoy peace. The recent skirmishes on the Indian frontier are but preliminary steps in the large design of world communism to make the whole world Communist. The cost of appeasement may be paid in the immediate future by the Chinese people. In the long run, that cost will have to be paid by all Asian peoples, including the people of India - and some day it may even have to be paid by the world as a whole.
Now I should like to turn to the speech made on Monday evening by the Defence Minister of India, Mr. Krishna Menon. It was a speech full of legal argumentation of the type which people usually call pettifoggery. He is fond of that type of argumentation. I am not. I shall therefore not reply to the legalistic part of his speech. He did, however, advance certain political considerations. For one thing, he said that many political regimes had been imposed by force. He said:
"Apart from humble countries like our own, there are not many regimes that have not been imposed by force." (A/PV.884, p. 102)
A moment later he said:
"... I submit that it is insulting the intelligence of ordinary people to turn round and say that a State cannot be recognized because it has been imposed by force." (Ibid)
I am surprised that the representative of India, speaking in the Assembly of the United Nations, should approve the use of force in the establishment of States and governments. On this point I shall not argue with him. I wish, however, to put on record my belief that the only legitimate government of any country is government by the consent of the governed. The difference between his view and my view on this point is important, particularly in the halls of the United Nations.
I shall not take time to argue this point, but we should look more closely and more carefully at this force, the legitimacy of which Mr. Menon accepts. What was the kind of force with which the Chinese Communist regime was imposed on China? Let me refresh the memories of the delegations to this Assembly on certain important developments in my country in the post-war period. I shall be very brief because the story has been told several times in the United Nations and it is on our records.
Towards the end of the Second World War, a Soviet army entered an important and critical area of China, the north-eastern provinces, commonly called Manchuria. The Soviet army entered my country nominally to fight against Japan. Very soon that Soviet army developed strange behaviour, hostile and aggressive towards my country. I presented my Government's complaint on that subject to the General Assembly at its fourth, fifth and sixth sessions. After long, exhaustive debates, the General Assembly finally pronounced its verdict. By its resolution 505 (VI) adopted on 1 February 1952, the General Assembly found that:
" ... the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics obstructed the efforts of the National Government of China in re-establishing Chinese national authority in the three Eastern Provinces (Manchuria) after the surrender of Japan and gave military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists against the National Government of China."
That is how the Communist regime was imposed on China. On the one hand the Soviet army, then in occupation of the Manchurian provinces, obstructed the efforts of my Government to establish national authority. On the other hand, the Soviet army supplied both military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists, who were then in rebellion against my Government.
The fact is that the Chinese Communist regime was imposed on China largely with Soviet military and economic aid. This makes all the difference in the world. For this reason, I humbly submit that the handing over of the seat of China to the Chinese Communists would lead the United Nations to negate and destroy its own principles and moral foundations.
Quite a number of the speakers in this debate have shed what I must call crocodile tears over the 600 million people of China for their alleged lack of representation in the United Nations. If the representatives of the nations assembled here have tears, human tears of compassion, let them shed them over the misery and the suffering of the 600 million Chinese men and women on the mainland during the last eleven years. The Chinese people are a long-suffering people, but they have never suffered so much as they have during the past eleven years. With the institution of the so-called people's communes, the Chinese people are reduced to the status of animals in a zoo. Their land, their homes, their cattle and their implements have all been taken away from them in the name of collectivization. Their very lives have been collectivized. They eat in common mess halls and sleep in common dormitories. They are no longer members of a labor brigade, or company, or platoon. They rise at the call of a bugle and march to work in military formation. After twelve to fourteen hours of exhausting work in the fields, they are marched back to starvation rations in the mess halls, and then they retire only to the barracks. Over the fate of such people let us shed real, human tears.
The point at issue in this debate is this. Should the United Nations confer additional prestige on the Chinese Communists by giving them the seat of China? That is the issue. I know some representatives in this hall do not wish to confer such additional prestige and have no intention of conferring such additional prestige. But whether you intend it or not, seating the Communists here will inevitably add to their prestige. And this added prestige would be used by the Chinese Communists, for one thing, to intensify the oppression of the Chinese people at home, and, for another, to threaten and endanger the peace and security of China's neighbors.
For these reasons free China appeals to this Assembly, for the sake of 600 million Chinese people, as well as for the sake of the ideals and principles of the United Nations, to uphold the recommendation of the General Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement by Ambassador Tingfu F. Tsiang, chairman of the Chinese Delegation to the 15th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, before the plenary meeting on 1 and 6 October 1960.