59. The tenth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations has opened on a note of apparent optimism. In the statements already made from this rostrum the belief is voiced that, with the outward change of Soviet attitude, world peace is now within possible reach. My delegation, representing a people who are by tradition and history peace-loving, welcomes every move or opportunity to make this world a better and happier place in which to live. Nuclear developments have made war more terrible than ever before. To save mankind from total destruction every nation, large or small, should bend its efforts towards the promotion of peace.
60. Before I turn to examine the problem of world peace, I should like to state briefly the position of my Government with respect to a few important items on the agenda.
61. The Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in August this year at Geneva, may prove to be a landmark of human progress. A number of representatives have already dwelt on the prospects of the industrial, agricultural and medical uses of the atom. Not only can the atom be made a new and plentiful source of power, but it also holds the key to many secrets of nature and to a better and richer human living. After ten years of frustrating negotiations with the Soviet Union on the international control of atomic energy, the United Nations finally owes this new impact of the peaceful atom to President Eisenhower of the United States, who, in his historic address before this Assembly on 8 December 1953 [470th meeting], first lifted the atom from the realm of fear to that of hope. The “Atoms-for-Peace” proposal has the full support of my delegation.
62. My Government has already established an atomic energy council further to mobilize its scientists and engineers and co-ordinate its efforts with those of friendly Powers in the development of atomic energy. It has entered into bilateral agreements with the United States of America in this field of international cooperation. It is our belief that science has no national boundaries and that its achievements may be shared and enjoyed by all mankind in the interest of peace and progress. Since 1946, my Government has advocated the international co-operative development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and will urge that an international atomic agency be established at the earliest possible date.
63. It is the hope of my delegation that the peaceful uses of atomic energy will be made available as early as possible to the under-developed countries, where progress in the industrial, medical and agricultural fields may be greatly hastened by the introduction of this new technique. It is also to be hoped that in due course a programme of international assistance on the peaceful uses of atomic energy, similar to the technical assistance programme of the United Nations, can be put into effect.
64. Now I wish to turn to another item of importance. Under the Charter, we are all bound to respect fundamental human rights and to uphold the dignity and worth of the human person. Ten years after the signing of the Charter, the United Nations and the specialized agencies concerned are still groping for effective means of implementing this provision of the Charter. Though as a result of studies made by the Ad Hoc Committee on Forced Labour, proof of forced labour in the Soviet Union and its satellites and on the Chinese mainland was established, the United Nations is yet unable to see its way to condemn such practice.
65. Forced labour, racial and social discrimination, religious intolerance, political persecution and purges, denial of free speech and movements, forced confessions* taking of life, imprisonment or punishment of an individual without a fair or public trial, denial to the individual of his right to choose his representative or governors — all these are still in existence in many States, including some Members of the United Nations.
66. In the face of this overwhelming evidence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is the hope of my delegation that the United Nations will intensify its efforts to prevent further violations; to promote human rights by all practical means, including the early adoption of effective international instruments, such as the draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; to expose, condemn and put the stamp of its moral judgment on the perpetrators of crimes on the human individual.
67. The question of the admission of new members remains on the agenda of this Assembly. Despite the work of the Committee of Good Offices, we are still unable to find a solution to the problem. While our search for a solution continues, my delegation wishes again to remind this Assembly that the Charter has clearly stated, in Article 4, the simple qualifications for membership in this international Organization: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.” Any concept of universality must be based on these requirements. As to whether or not an applicant nation is peace-loving or whether it is able and willing to carry out these obligations, it is for the Member States here assembled to judge. Those that do not meet the Charter requirements must in the interest of the United Nations itself be excluded, for instance the so-called Mongolian People’s Republic. On the other hand, my delegation profoundly regrets that a number of applicant nations who were supported by a majority of votes in the Security Council had been kept out by the abusive use of the veto by the Soviet Union. My delegation will continue to support the application for membership of any sovereign State which, in its opinion, is peace-loving and which can and will carry out the obligations under the Charter. Only two days ago, another State, with its long history of cultural achievements, applied for membership in this Organization. The Chinese delegation will support Spain’s admission as we did the other States, which have received the majority vote in the Security Council.
68. Let me now turn to the problem of world peace which is uppermost in our minds. The United Nations is an organization charged with the responsibility of maintaining world peace. When we discuss here any effort relating to peace, it is Incumbent upon all of us that the type of peace we aim at must be in accord with the spirit of the Charter. I am in full agreement with the Chairman of the United States delegation, Mr. John Foster Dulles, when he said on 11 April this year: “... craven purchase of peace at the expense of principle can result in destroying much of the human spirit on this planet. Peace, under certain conditions, could lead to a degradation of the human race and to subjecting human beings to a form of mental decay which obliterates the capacity for moral and intellectual judgment”.
69. It will be remembered that a failure to understand the real nature of nazism led to the tragic debacle in 1939, The same mistake can be made again today. In so far as our hopes today are based principally on the Soviet professions of peace, it is necessary that we examine objectively such professions in the light of Soviet history. Let us be sure that the Soviet motive is not a calculated effort to capitalize on the world’s longing for peace and its abhorrence of war as a means of further extending Communist rule over the world. Let us be sure that it is not a manoeuvre to divert the peoples of the free world from necessary measures of defence and create a demand for peace at any price. Can we be sure that the seeming flicker of light on the international horizon is not a false dawn?
70. The recent apparent volte-face on the part of the Soviet Union is no new thing. Nor is the slogan “peaceful co-existence” a fresh one. We have witnessed in the past 38 years more than one such tactical manoeuvre, and some of these have been equally dramatic. In September 1927, for instance, Stalin, in an interview with the first United States labour delegation in Moscow, took great pains to explain that communism and capitalism could co-exist “in conditions of peaceful development”. “We are pursuing a policy of peace”, he declared, “and are prepared to come to sign a pact of non-aggression with bourgeois states. We are pursuing a policy of peace and we are prepared to come to an agreement concerning disarmament, including the abolition of standing armies.” This profession of “peaceful development” found expression in the United Front policy of the 1930’s and in the Soviet Union’s joining the League of Nations. It was during this period that communism enjoyed world-wide popularity and Communist influence began to expand in all countries. Then came Stalin's deal with Hitler in August 1939, thus precipitating the Second World War. The signing of the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression treaty automatically transformed Hitler into a “force of peace” and the Western Powers into “warmongers” and “cannibals”. This classification was quickly reversed in 1941 when Hitler invaded the USSR. During the “grand alliance” the Soviet Union was everywhere hailed as a democratic nation “dedicated to peace, freedom, and general wellbeing of all mankind”. Yet it was precisely during this period that eight independent nations fell under Communist tyranny, and Communist-directed disorders flared up in Italy, France, Greece, as well as in the Far East. Wherever the Soviet troops marched, there the Communists and their stooges were raised to power. In China, the Soviet Union prevented my Government at the end of the Second World War from sending troops and administrative personnel to Manchuria to take over the administration of that area. At, the same time it secretly admitted the Communists to Manchuria and equipped them with arms surrendered by the Japanese.
71. With the onset of the cold war, the wartime honeymoon came to an end. Meanwhile, mainland China fell into Communist hands. Not long afterwards the Republic of Korea was invaded. Thanks to the heroic stand of the Korean people and the instantaneous action of the United States and the collective measures taken by the United Nations, Communist aggression in Asia, for the first time, received a serious setback.
72. The death of Stalin in March 1953 brought about another shift in Soviet strategems. The old slogan of “peaceful co-existence” was dusted off and presented to the free world as a new commodity. There is, however, this difference. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Soviet- Union was weak and “peaceful co-existence” in these days was primarily a defensive tactic. Today, the Soviet Union is strong and “peaceful co-existence” is offensive in character. In his speech before this Assembly last Friday [520th meeting], Mr. Molotov demonstrated that on all basic questions the Soviet policy has not changed. If there is such a thing as the spirit of Geneva in Mr. Molotov’s statement, it is to be found not in substance but in mannerism.
73. The leaders of the Communist world may now use softer words. But Germany is still divided and the satellite countries are still ruled by Soviet puppets. In Asia, the unification of Korea remains as remote as ever; Indo-China hangs in the balance; mainland China has been converted into a gigantic concentration camp; and Communist subversion is everywhere rampant. The fact is that international communism cannot afford to stand still; it must go forward, or stagnate. In a Communist State, it is struggle that gives it the breath of life. Struggle takes many forms: it may be military, it may be political, it may be warfare against bourgeois States, or it may be warfare against the civilian population. The peace overtures of the Communist world are a form of political struggle which, at the opportune time, can readily be transformed into a military one, for the two forms of struggle are interchangeable and complementary. We in China have, through painful and bitter experience, come to understand this.
74. Communist leaders have never concealed the fact that communism and capitalism cannot co-exist peacefully for any considerable length of time. Lenin’s pronouncement on this subject is well-known. It still bears quoting. He declared: “We are living not only in a State, but in a system of States, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist States for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end comes, a series of frightful clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable.”
75. The present peace drive, though launched after his death, was really conceived by Stalin himself. In November 1951 the late Soviet dictator expounded his ideas of a peace movement in a speech which was published a year later in the Soviet Communist Party monthly, Bolshevik. It is significant that the appearance of the Stalin article coincided with the nineteenth Party Congress in Moscow. Its extraordinary importance was confirmed by Pravda, which described Stalin’s article as “the greatest event in the ideological life of the Party and the Soviet people”.
76. What did Stalin want to get out of the peace drive? He wanted three things: to postpone any possible capitalist attack on the Soviet Union, to promote dissension among the bourgeois States, and to hasten the “imperialist war” among them. With a frankness characteristic of him, Stalin said that sooner or later “the fight for peace” would be transformed into “a fight for Socialism”. The Soviet Union, he added, could not and would not commit itself forever to peace. That would be “bourgeois pacifism”.
77. In their “fight for peace” the present Soviet rulers have been at pains to play down Stalin. Yet they too have made it perfectly clear that “co-existence” is a temporary tactic, an episode within an all-embracing, inescapable struggle between hostile and irreconcilable systems of power. Only the other day, on 17 September, Mr. Krushchev said that “those who wait for the Soviet Union to abandon communism wait until a shrimp learns to whistle”. He is sure that communism would eventually triumph over decadent capitalism.
78. Thus the Soviet peace drive is not in fact peaceful in intention. It is a form of war. Mr. Manuilsky, at the time of the Front populaire movement, said: “War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we will begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtones and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to co-operate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down we shall smash them with our clenched fists.”
79. Such, then, is the motive behind all the recent show of goodwill and seeming flexibility in negotiations. The peace tactic chimes in with the desperate hopes of a war-weary world so perfectly that the smallest concessions, such as the release of illegally-held prisoners of war and civilians, the admission of some foreign journalists, or the exchange of a few civil words between Soviet leaders and foreign diplomats are being eagerly seized upon as evidence of Soviet sincerity and a change of policy.
80. My Government, in common with all other free Governments represented in this great Assembly, stands for peace. But the kind of peace the world needs, as I said at the beginning of my statement, is genuine peace. It is peace with justice and freedom. I submit that no peace built on the enslavement of nearly half of the world’s population can be called genuine and can long last.
81. If the international situation has shown any sign of hope it is the product, not of Soviet goodwill, "but of the policy of strength adopted by the free world. This policy has achieved a measure of success in Europe. The rising tide of communism, for the time being at least, has been checked. But millions of people still live under Communist tyranny. We should not be mistaken about the Soviet Union’s ultimate aims, its potential for military aggression, and its tyrannical political system.
82. In Asia, a beginning has been made to counter Communist expansion by a system of regional collective security. The Manila Pact is a case in point. Unfortunately, this pact is still limited in scope and without adequate armed strength. In addition, there are in existence several bilateral mutual security treaties. In view, however, of the tremendous momentum of Communist expansionism in Asia, further strengthening of the military and economic positions of the free countries in that area is imperative,
83. In some Asian countries, such is the residue of hostility and suspicion left by European colonialism that even otherwise farsighted statesmen tend to regard colonialism as a primary issue and Communist expansionism as only a secondary one. This accounts for the growth and popularity of neutralism. In the Communist lexicon, neutralism is synonymous with hostility. Both Lenin and Stalin sneered at those who pretended that they could remain neutral in the world-wide struggle between capitalism and communism, Mao Tze-tung j himself has this to say about neutrality: “It wouldn’t do to sit on the fence. There is no such a thing as the third open road. We are therefore opposed to the illusions of the third open road. This applies not only to China but to the whole world as well. You either side with imperialism or with socialism. There is no other alternative.” Mao continues to expound that an individual or a nation can be either for communism or against it, and all those who sit on the fence are enemies.
84. Although they regard neutrals as potential enemies, the Communists have no hesitation, as a tactical move, in utilizing them to sharpen conflicts between enemies. This is cynically expressed in the slogan, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. This most astute formula is applied to the Communist backing of nationalism, particularly in Asia. The real motive in this connexion is, of course, to capitalize on Asian nationalism for the purpose of accelerating the spread of communism in Asia. Nationalism and communism are in fact incompatible with each other. All students of Marxism-Leninism know that nationalism as such is only used by Communists as a means to foster anti-colonial sentiments. To them, nationalism is only a means to an end.
85. I have already touched upon the questions of Korea and Viet-Nam. The problem of Korean unity has been an item on the General Assembly agenda since 1947. It is still there. It is the duty and obligation of the United Nations to translate the agenda item into reality. We should not shirk our responsibility. We should not sit back and close our eyes to a situation which is still fraught with dangerous possibilities. In Viet-Nam there is no denying the fact that Communist strength and influence are growing. It is our duty to see to it that Viet-Nam is saved from Communist tyranny. We must not allow North Viet-Nam to annex South Viet-Nam by a rigged and fraudulent “election” like that which happened in eastern Europe.
86. Let me now turn to my own country. The Communists, supported by the Soviet Union, were able to impose their tyrannical rule on the 500 million — according to Communist claims 600 million — unwilling people on the mainland in 1949. Six years have now passed. The Communists have spawned a gigantic system of repression and terrorism, the like of which has never been known in Chinese history. On the opening day of this session [516th meeting] I had the opportunity to call to the attention of this Assembly the fact that in the first three years of Communist domination over 20 million innocent people were slaughtered under one pretext or another. The mass slaughter of human beings still goes on. In my brief statement I quoted Miss Shih Liang, the so-called Minister of Justice of the Peiping regime, in showing the magnitude of the Communist persecution. It will be recalled that Miss Shih Liang boasted on 29 July 1955 that from January 1954 to May 1955, the “people’s courts” of all-levels had dealt with no fewer than 364,604 counter-revolutionary cases. That means that there were on the average some 22,000 such cases per month, 700 cases per day, or one case every two minutes. Now, there must be a compelling reason for resorting to such extreme measures. Obviously, these brutal measures were found to be necessary in order to keep the people in abject fear. They also demonstrate graphically the magnitude of the people’s resistance to communist tyranny.
87. Miss Shih Liang’s report is corroborated by another equally authentic Communist. Lo Jui-ching, Peiping’s Minister of Public Security, said, in a key speech before the so-called “National People’s Congress” on 27 July 1955, that the previous campaigns of suppression, such as the “3-anti” and “5-anti” campaigns were directed primarily at “open” counter-revolutionaries; strong measures, he urged, must now be taken against “hidden” counter-revolutionaries, who had camouflaged their activities in order to infiltrate the Communist party, the democratic parties, and the people’s organizations, Government organs and the People’s Liberation Army. “The struggle to suppress counter-revolution”, Lo Jui-ching declared, “is therefore a somewhat long-term one. So long as classes exist within the country and imperialism exists outside, the struggle against counter-revolutionaries is bound to exist.” Lo Jui-ching’s own words amount to a confession that the puppet Communist regime is far from being as stable as some superficial observers would have Us believe.
88. My Government, now based on Taiwan, has moral as well as legal obligations towards the suffering people on the mainland, whose desire to be restored to a free way of life has manifested itself with increasing clarity and force. The desire of a people to regain its lost freedom, as well as the desire of a people to see its own compatriots freed from the yoke of tyranny, cannot possibly be denied by any code of law. If mainland China is to be liberated from Communist tyranny, the work of liberation will be done mainly by the Chinese people themselves — I refer not only to the 10 million people on Taiwan and the 13 million people overseas, but also to the 500 million people on the Chinese mainland.
89. While dedicated to the objective of restoring freedom to its people on the mainland, my Government has never once appealed to the United Nations for assistance in achieving such an end. But if, as it is at present constituted, the United Nations cannot give a helping hand to the millions of captive peoples behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, it can and should refrain from acts that would make their suffering even more unbearable, that would snuff out their hope for eventual liberation, or that would condemn them to perpetual slavery. Above all, the United Nations should refrain from giving material aid or moral comfort to their enslavers. A peace that legalizes injustices and wrongs is certainly not the type of peace we want. It is only a spurious peace. Such a peace would not be in conformity with-the principles and purposes of the Charter. It would be a moral surrender which would have consequences no less terrible than those of war, because the free world cannot long remain free and strong under such a peace.