It is my pleasant duty, on behalf of my Government and delegation, to extend to Mr. Slim, our sincere congratulations. His unanimous election to the office of President is the measure of the esteem in which he is held by his colleagues in the United Nations. As the representative of Tunisia since 1956 he has served both the United Nations and his country with courage and distinction. Now, under his able and wise guidance, the sixteenth regular session of the General Assembly, though begin under the shadow of tragedy in the death of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, may yet end on a note of hope, as he himself has so well said in his inaugural address [1008th meeting].
64. The late Secretary-General had great faith in the United Nations. He had definite ideas of the direction in which the United Nations must move. In the introduction [A/4800/Add.l] to the annual report of the
Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, issued not long before his death, he had left us, as it were, his last will and testament. In this document he rejected the idea that the United Nations should be a "static conference machinery" apart but not basically different from conventional diplomacy. He preferred to think of the United Nations as a "dynamic instrument of Governments", a living expression of certain fundamental principles. He had no desire to give the United Nations "a position of power or control in-a Member country". He was convinced, in short, that international order can be maintained only on the basis of law and justice.
65. In the past, nations of the world used conventional diplomacy to protect and, if possible, to advance what they conceived to be their national interests. In a world in which power politics played a decisive role, it was not always easy for small and weak nations to do so. All too often their vital interests were sacrificed to satisfy the ambitions of the strong and predatory. At the close of the First World War the League of Nations was created to maintain the rule of law in world affairs. A thrill of hope shot through millions of war-weary hearts, who believed that a semblance of law and order was at long last in sight. But these hopes proved ill- founded. The League failed. It failed because it did not live up to the promise of the Covenant, particularly Article 10, providing for the mutual guarantee of political independence and territorial integrity of all member States.
66. Article 10 was an American contribution and constituted, in the words of President Woodrow Wilson, "the backbone of the whole of the Covenant" and the sine qua non of any valid system of collective security. The League signed its own death warrant when it capitulated in face of the invasion of the Chinese north-eastern provinces—Manchuria—by the Japanese militarists, of Mussolini's rape of Ethiopia, and of Hitler's expansionist policies in Europe. Strangely enough, the League did all these things in the name of peace and for the sake of peace. It was too much in love with the easy doctrine of peace at all costs. It did not hesitate to bring pressure to bear on the victims of aggression to surrender "peacefully" so that war might be avoided. By so doing, it actually aided and abetted aggression.
67. What lesson can we draw from this unhappy episode in recent history? It is, I believe, this. Peace we must at all times cherish. But peace based on political expediency and appeasement rather than on law and justice cannot long endure. The kind of peace which the League of Nations sought so desperately to preserve was a sham peace which proved only to be the prelude to a war far more terrible and devastating than the First World War. By becoming in fact an accomplice in aggression, the League made war inevitable.
68. Are the mistakes of the League of Nations to be repeated by the United Nations? This is a question which we must face squarely and unequivocally. On the answering of this question hinges the fate of the United Nations.
69. The statesmen who met in San Francisco in 1945 to frame the Charter of the United Nations had had the sad experience of the League of Nations before them. They therefore set out to create an international Organization not only capable of taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
to do so "in conformity with the principles of justice and international law".
70. Under the Charter, the Security Council is vested with full authority to apply all sanctions, including the use of force, against any nation that commits a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression. It is a well known fact that the Security Council has been seriously hampered by the obstructionist tactics of the Soviet Union. To date, its greatest achievement has been the decision taken in 1950 to counter communist aggression in Korea.& And that decision, it will be recalled, was made possible only by the Soviet walk-out from the Council as a gesture of indignation at the failure of its effort to unseat my delegation. Thus, the Soviet Union made a gratuitous contribution to the cause of collective security.
71. Since 1950 the Security Council has all but ceased to* function. The "Uniting for peace" resolution [377 (V)] of November 1950 transferred much of the Council's authority to the General Assembly. It was the General Assembly that dealt successfully with the Suez crisis in 1956. The General Assembly was not, however, so successful when it turned its attention to the Soviet Union's bloody suppression of Hungarian freedom. The sad fact is that the influence of the United Nations is mainly felt in .the free world, where public opinion and respect for law and justice play an important role.
72. The present session of the General Assembly has been convened again, as I said, in an atmosphere of crisis. International communism is everywhere on the march, and everywhere it is riding roughshod over the dignity and worth of the human person. In Berlin, the Soviet Union and East German agents are threatening the security and freedom of over two million West Berliners, whose sole desire is to be left alone and to go about their daily pursuits in peace and without fear. The Berlin crisis is a deliberate Soviet creation designed to bring West Berlin under communist domination. In South Viet-Nam, infiltration and subversion carried out by international communism against the established Government have reached menacing proportions. The peaceful people of the Kingdom of Laos are in danger of losing their independence through a civil war precipitated by the agents of the communist regimes in China and North Viet-Nam. The three-year moratorium on nuclear testing has now come to an abrupt end with the Soviet resumption of detonations. The warlike and aggressive moves on the part of the Soviet Union have brought on a new armaments race which can well trigger off a thermonuclear holocaust.
73. Turning to the United Nations itself, we find that a constitutional crisis of the-first magnitude has been brought into being by the sudden death of Secretary- General Dag Hammarskjold. For over a year, the Soviet Union has been campaigning for the reorganization of the Secretariat in accordance with the so-called "troika plan." The Soviet intention apparently is so to emasculate the Organization as to render it totally incapable of effective action. My delegation believes that if the United Nations is to meet the challenges of our age, it must have a Secretary-General capable of performing the duties of the office as defined by the Charter. Those of us who have the true interests of the Organization at heart cannot allow it to be destroyed by one Member, however powerful that Member maybe.
On an issue involving the very existence of the United Nations, there can be no neutralists or bystanders,
74. This brings me to the question of neutralism. Let me say at once that my delegation believes there is nothing wrong when a new and emerging State steers clear of power blocs by adopting a policy of neutrality or non-alignment. There is too much to do at home and too little time in which to do it, to allow involvement in power struggles. All this is understandable. But I submit that neutralism does not mean the repudiation of moral judgement on what is right and what is wrong, what is justice and what is injustice. Certainly, on such issues as Tibet and Hungary—issues that involve such Charter principles as self-determination of peoples, human rights and fundamental freedoms—no country can claim neutrality.
75. I may say in passing that the Communists do not in fact believe there is such a thing as neutralism. Mao Tse-tung, chieftain of Chinese Communism, declared in his book ``On People's Democratic Dictatorship":
...the Chinese people must incline either toward the side of imperialism or to that of Socialism. There can be no exception to this rule. It is impossible to sit in the fence..."
"Not only in China but throughout the world, without exception, one inclines either toward imperialism or toward Socialism. Neutrality is merely a camouflage; a third road does not exist."
76. In the New Terminology Dictionary published by the Chinese Communists, the term "neutralist line" is defined as follows:
"This is a day-dream and can never be realized. Even its theory is not correct. As the world situation stands today, there are only two roads—either to support capitalism or to support socialism—and there is no third road. Any vain hope to take on a third road: is doomed to failure."
77. It is thus clear that neutralism is anathema to the Communists. Within their own camp, neutralism is equated with counter-revolution. In the eyes of the Kremlin the greatest crime committed by Imre Nagy was his declaration that the Hungarian Government was about to pursue a policy of neutralism and that he had dared to request the General Assembly of the United Nations to place the question of Hungary's neutrality on its agenda.
78. The Communists have thus no more love for neutralism than they have for capitalism. Yet, as a matter of tactics, they do not hesitate to recommend neutralism to countries on the fringe of communist power. In the communist propaganda of today the neutralist States have become "the peace blood of nations" as distinguished from the "aggressive imperialist blood" headed by the United States. Neutralism is being used to soften up the free world's resistance to communism. I trust that leaders of the majority of the neutralist States are far too intelligent and sophisticated to play into the hands of international communism.
79. So much for neutralism. Let me now turn to some of the important problems on our agenda.
80. All the world agrees that the most urgent problem of our time is disarmament. The United Nations has been preoccupied with the problem ever since its founding. It is saddening to>* reflect that after fifteen years of negotiations there is nothing more inspiring to show than volumes upon volumes of tendentious speeches made by negotiators.' It is not difficult to find where the responsibility lies. The Soviet Union, it should have become dear by this time, is not really interested in disarmament; it is interested only in scoring propaganda points. Khrushchev's grandiose proposal of "general and complete disarmament", unaccompanied as it is by any adequate system of controls or any workable plan by which it is to be carried out, cannot be regarded as anything but a propaganda device.
81. In his address to the Assembly [1013th meeting) on 25 September 1961, President Kennedy, in a spirit of conciliation, unfolded a disarmament programme of far-reaching importance. He has, as I understand it, accepted the idea of "general and complete disarmament" in principle. But, unlike Khrushchev, he has outlined the steps by which the programme is to be carried out. My delegation subscribes to President Kennedy's initiative and businesslike approach. We regret, however, that the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, in his statement before the Assembly [1016th meeting] on 26 September, saw fit to reject offhand President Kennedy's plan.
82. Another problem facing the General Assembly is the question of colonialism. It is heartening to observe that European colonialism is on the way out. Since the last war more than forty formerly dependent peoples have achieved political freedom and are now respected members of the world community. To be sure, there are still peoples which are struggling for freedom. But I am convinced that it is but a matter of time before they too will become free. The rising tide of nationalism will soon sweep away the last vestiges of colonialism the world over.
83. Memories of past wrongs do not die easily. Nor can the tremendous residue of suspicion and hostility left behind by European colonialism disappear overnight. It is natural that leaders of Asian and African nationalism should be impatient about the isolated pockets of colonial domination that still remain. We fully support their aspirations. For we have ourselves but recently emerged from semi-colonialism. In fact, we were among the earliest peoples in Asia to denounce and fight against colonialism. That is why my delegation has consistently supported the applications for membership in the United Nations of all new African States, and we will continue to do so. It is both astonishing and amusing to observe that the Soviet Union, the greatest colonial Power in the twentieth century, should thump its chest and pose as the world's greatest champion of the oppressed peoples. Let us refresh our memories with a few historical facts.
84. The Soviet Union once promised to "recognize without reservation" the independence of Lithuania, Latvia, and' Estonia and "for all time abandon all sovereign rights over them". Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have now been gabbled up and incorporated into the Soviet State.
85. The Soviet Union once promised "to respect in every way the political sovereignty" of Poland. Later it struck a bargain with Hitler and partitioned that country.
86. The Soviet Union once promised, in a last minute declaration of war on Japan, that it had "no thought territorial expansion at the expense of that country". What, it actually did was to annex by the force Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands.
87. Colonialism is colonialism no matter where it happens, no matter who is the perpetrator, and no matter what the colour of the skin of the oppressed may be. In struggling against colonial domination we cannot close our eyes to Soviet imperialism, the worst type of imperialism the world has ever seen. We cannot allow the Soviet Union to strike a cynical pose of superior rectitude and look noble.
88. Intimately connected with the liquidation of colonialism is the question of self-determination of peoples. A number of Asian and African peoples have already exercised this right in accordance with the spirit of the Charter. It is an act of great injustice that the peoples now under Soviet domination are denied the right. The German problem, which threatens to touch o££ a global conflagration, is essentially a question of self-determination. But it suits the Soviet purpose to keep the country divided against the true wishes of the German people. The dividing of a single and homogeneous country in two is a favourite Soviet device for expansion. So, in addition to the spectacle of a divided Viet-Nam and a divided Korea, there is now the danger of a partitioned Germany.'
89. The Soviet challenge to human freedom is formidable indeed. The goal is no less than the eventual conquest of the whole world. Soviet leaders have never concealed what they intend to do. They believe that with tremendous growth of Soviet strength, the day of the final triumph of international Communism is near at hand. This has been made clear by the draft Programme of the Soviet Communist Party published in July 1961. This important document tells us that the world capitalist system is ripe for the socialist revolution of the proletariat; that socialism can be achieved only through revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat; and that the high road to socialism has already been paved for the peoples of the world to travel. Marxist-Leninists, we are told, regard nationalism in oppressed countries as expressing "the ideology and interests of the reactionary exploiting top stratum"; if they support it, it is only because it is historically "justified at a given stage" of development. In other words, all present-day nationalist leaders are members of the "reactionary exploiting top stratum", and nationalism is useful only as a preparation for eventual Communist take-over.
90. Viewed in this light, the doctrine of "peaceful coexistence" is neither "peace" nor "coexistence". How can Khruschev, who has since 1956 made some 140 threats to annihilate more than twenty different countries, be regarded as a man of peace? It is obvious that to Khruschev coexistence is only a passing phase in historical development. The declaration of eighty-one communist parties, issued in Moscow in November 1960, is forthright in its rejection of any genuine and lasting compromise. Let me quote:
"Peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems does not mean conciliation of the socialist and bourgeois ideologies. On the contrary, it implies intensification of the struggle of the working class, of all Communist Parties, for the triumph of socialist ideas."
91. We in China know from bitter experience what coexistence means. We tried to coexist with the Communists not once, but three times. The first was in 1923 when we accepted Soviet military and economic aid to complete Dr. Sun Yat-sen's programme of national revolution, that is, the overthrow of imperialist domination in China, At the request of Moscow, the Chinese Communists joined Dr, Sun's Kuomintang or Nationalist Party as members, on the promise that they would henceforth give up their own ideology and serve the Kuomintang with loyalty after Dr. Sun's death in 1925, however, the Communists lost no time in trying to wrest the leadership of the national revolution from the Kuomintang, and turn it into a communist revolution. In 1927 this experiment in coexistence ended in disaster. The Communists then resorted to armed insurrection.
92. In 1937 the Communists proposed to co-operate with the National Government in fighting against Japanese aggression. They promised to incorporate their forces into the National Army. Events soon proved that, instead of fighting the Japanese the Communists took the opportunity to expand their own influence. At the close of the war in 1945, they openly defied my Government and set up a rival regime in North China. Thus ended the second experiment in coexistence.
93. Toward the end of 1945, President Truman sent General George C. Marshall to China to mediate between the National Government and the Communists in the hope that a coalition government might be established. This was the third well-intentioned attempt at coexistence. The Communists again used the opportunity to expand their armed forces. Meanwhile, the Soviet troops in Manchuria delayed their withdrawal until the Chinese Communists could move into the north-eastern provinces to receive from the Russians the arms captured from the Japanese. Thus equipped the Communists were ready to fight a civil war against the National Government. In 1949 they took over the Chinese mainland.
94. This is the story of "peaceful coexistence" between the Communists and my Government in China. The lesson of this tragedy should not be lost on those who today still think that they can co-operate with the Soviet Union and international Communism,
95. Twelve years have passed since the establishment of the Chinese Communist regime on mainland China. Under the tyrannical rule of the Communists, the like of which China has never, never known, the people have been plunged into the depths of despair. In 1958 the so-called "people's communes" were introduced. By this diabolical system, Chinese society has been transformed beyond all recognition, completely tearing it away from its ancient moorings of family loyalty and solidarity. Husbands and wives and their children are forcibly torn apart by having to work and live in separate localities. They work, eat and retire at the sound of the bugle. The vast country has become one gigantic slave camp. The horrors of the communes surpass anything ever conceived by George Orwell.
96. As a result of the communal system, agricultural production has declined. A continuing famine of unprecedented proportions stalks the land. Yet the Communists have never ceased to export grain to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in payment of loans and imports. For this and other more important reasons, the starving and suffering masses look to the Government of the Republic of China now based on Taiwan for deliverance. We shall not fail to respond to their call if the opportunity presents itself.
97. In Taiwan we have, under the leadership of President Chiang Kai-shek, carried out successfully a land reform. programme in three stages. About 80 per cent of the farmers now own the land they till. The economic aid extended to us by the United States has enabled us to place our agriculture and industry on a sound basis of development. We now enjoy a standard of living which is one of the highest in all Asia.
98. The Republic of China is more than the province of Taiwan. It is a symbol of free Chinese nationalism everywhere. It represents the spirit of the Chinese nation. Its very existence implies the eventual restoration of freedom to the 600 million Chinese people now under the domination of the communist regime.
99. Before closing, I should like to say a final word about the United Nations. The United Nations, created to preserve the peace in conformity with law and justice, as well as to promote social progress and better standards of life, is now in danger of being perverted to serve the interest of powerful war makers and international bullies who have no respect for the principles and purposes enshrined in the Charter. Those who stand for law and justice, for moral values and human decency for resistance to force, are reviled for their courage and steadiness of purpose. Appeasement is very much in the air. There are delegations in the Assembly which are bent on strengthening the forces of evil by adding to the United Nations membership those who are clearly disqualified by the spirit and the letter of the Charter. They base their case on "realism" and on the so-called principle of universality. If they are allowed to have their way, then the era of collective aggression, not of collective security, will be upon us. This is a grim state of affairs indeed. Unless the majority of the Member States accept the reality of the danger and unite their efforts to meet it, the United Nations is destined to go the way of the League of Nations.