108. Mr. TSIANG (China): In ordinary housekeeping, good housewives of all lands agree that they should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. In the kind of housekeeping in which the United Nations is engaged, I suggest that we should try to avoid being moment-wise and years-foolish. The main task of our housekeeping here is, of course, the preservation of peace. This is what this Organization was established for. This is what all peoples of the world ardently desire. I suggest that we, who are entrusted by our governments and peoples with the task of peace preservation, should always keep in mind that it would be utterly foolish to win the peace of weeks and months and lose the peace of years and decades. The world has rightly condemned Munich because the peace of Munich lasted only a few months and paved the way for the Second World War. I am a Chinese, and therefore I do not speak here about eternal peace or perpetual peace. We Chinese find metaphysical speculation to be uncongenial. On the other hand, being a Chinese, I am philosophical enough to try to look beyond weeks and months and to strive for something that may endure for years and decades.
109. The subject of Munich has been made threadbare. It is in fact too trite even for rhetorical purposes. Nevertheless, I feel compelled at the beginning of my intervention in this general debate to refer once more to Munich. The trouble with Munich was that the agreement signed by Chamberlain and Daladier was of that kind which was moment-wise and years- foolish. As I recall, Chamberlain and Daladier were not alone in advocating the peace of Munich. When they returned from Munich to their respective capitals, they were acclaimed by vast numbers of their fellow countrymen. They honestly and sincerely told the grateful crowds that they had secured “peace in our time” and that their peace was “a peace with honour”. In the fall of 1938, if my memory serves me right, almost all the peoples of Western Europe agreed with Chamberlain and Daladier. It is not the individual action of Chamberlain and Daladier that alarms me. It is the momentary popularity of those men in the fall of 1938 that indicates to me that we should try, in this matter of peace, to profit by the experience and, therefore, the wisdom of the ordinary housewife.
110. What, after all, was the trouble with Munich? In the first place, Chamberlain and Daladier had no proof of the peaceful purpose of Nazi Germany other than tie speeches of Hitler and Goebbels. In fact, the domestic policies and the diplomatic efforts of Hitler all pointed to war. So long as the nature of Hitlerite Germany remained what it was, the propagandist assurances of Hitler and Goebbels should have been disregarded. In the second place, Munich turned out to be a great tragedy because Chamberlain and Daladier, by the Munich agreement, strengthened Hitler for further aggression.
111. Today, in seeking peace through the United Nations, we must not repeat the mistakes of Munich. We have the right and the duty to demand from the Kremlin actual evidence of peace-loving intentions other than and in addition to speeches and editorial comments. In the second place, we must be on our guard against strengthening the forces of world communism and weakening the strength of the free world. After all that has been said in the peace offensive of the Soviet Union, we have no evidence whatsoever that world communism has changed its purpose or its nature. All the evidence that we have points to the fact that world communism strives today, as it has striven through the last thirty years, for world domination. If we wish to have fresh evidence on this point, the speech of the Soviet Union representative here in this Assembly on 21 September [438th meeting] is ample proof. There was nothing new whatever in that speech. So far as that statement is concerned, the policy of the Soviet Union seems to be unchanging and changeless.
112. The Charter furnishes us with some guidance in our pursuit of a peace that can endure. When the Charter was framed, the events leading up to the Second World War were fresh in the minds of the representatives who assembled in San Francisco. They knew that the Japanese militarists could not have launched the full-scale war against China in 1937 or their Pearl Harbor attack against the United States in 1941 unless .and until the military leaders of Japan had secured absolute control of life in Japan. In the six years before Japan’s full-scale war against China, the militarists in Japan executed a series of terroristic acts to get rid of political leaders who stood for peace and moderation. They succeeded in controlling Japanese political life and public opinion to such an extent that by 1937 their regime was totalitarian. The suppression of freedom in Japan was a precondition and a prelude to aggressive war.
113. The representatives at the San Francisco Conference undoubtedly remembered also the development of the Hitlerite regime in Germany before the German army occupied Bohemia and Moravia in the spring of 1939. Hitler did away with the Weimar Republic. In its place, he established a totalitarian regime which enabled him not only to rebuild the army and to sacrifice butter for guns, but to remake the mind of the German people. I was in Germany in the winter of 1934, that is, almost at the beginning of the Hitlerite regime. I noticed that the common people of Germany in the winter of 1934 were not only devoted to peace, but were absolutely terrified by the mere mention of war. The control which Hitler managed to achieve converted a peace-loving German people into a fanatical warlike aggressor people. In Germany, as in Japan, the establishment of a totalitarian regime was a precondition and a prelude to aggressive war.
114. The events leading up to the aggressive war by Japan and Germany were fresh in the minds of the framers of the Charter. It is for this reason that we find throughout the Articles of the Charter two consistent and intertwining themes. One theme is, of course, peace. The other theme is human rights and fundamental freedoms.
115. In the Preamble of the Charter, we find the second paragraph declaring that “we, the peoples of the United Nations”, are determined “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”. Article 1 of the Charter, in stating the basic purposes of the United Nations, mentions "encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”. Chapter IV of the Charter is devoted to the General Assembly, and Article 13 enjoins on the General Assembly to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of “assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language of religion”. Chapter IX of the Charter is' devoted to the subject of international economic and social co-operation. I should like to quote part of Article 55, which states: "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote… “c. Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.” Chapter XII of the Charter is devoted to the International Trusteeship System. In defining the basic objectives of the Trusteeship System, Article 76 states that one of these objectives should be “to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.
116. The Charter makes very clear the basic importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms as such, and also shows the direct and intimate relationship between respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the preservation of international peace. This emphasis on the relation between human rights and peace, or between freedom and peace, as attested by these articles which I have quoted, was due not only to the general enlightenment of the twentieth century, but it was also due to a clear and deep recognition of the causes which had led to the Second World War. I am happy to note that the representative of Chile, in his speech before the General Assembly on 18 September [436th meeting], made this very point.
117. If the United Nations is to promote, not the peace of the moment but the peace of years and decades, it must also keep in mind the intimate connexion between peace and freedom. Peace and freedom are inseparable, just as tyranny and war are inseparable. In seeking peace today, we must ever keep in mind that we cannot achieve peace through the sacrifice of freedom. There are today peoples behind the Iron Curtain, both in Europe and in Asia, who are struggling for freedom. Their struggle is part of the world struggle for an enduring peace. If we understand correctly the task of the United Nations, we must recognize that the fighters for freedom and the fighters for peace are, in fact, two wings of the same army and that their efforts should be co-ordinated. It would be utter foolishness for one wing of the army to destroy the other wing of this same army.
118. Having suggested a guiding principle for our Pursuit of peace in the world in general, I now proceed to discuss the strategy of peace in the Far East. In Working for an enduring peace in Korea, we must keep in mind the basic importance of unification. I humbly submit to this Assembly that the achievement of national unity by the Korean people is the key to an enduring peace in that part of the world. The Korean people are one people—one in race, one in language, and one in tradition. The geography of the peninsula furnishes the natural foundations for national unity. In fact, Korea is basically more united than some of the oldest nations represented here. It is even more united than the United Kingdom.
119. Now, let us stop to consider what unity or division in Korea can mean to peace in the Far East. A united Korea would be strong enough, if not to repel aggression, at least to deter aggression. On the other hand, a united Korea can never be strong enough to commit aggression against its neighbours, even if the Korean people should ever be misled into launching a war of aggression. It is for this reason that during the last fifty years my fellow countrymen have all, without distinction of political party, favoured the establishment of a united and independent Korea. We desire such a Korea as much as the Western European countries have desired an independent Belgium. The perpetuation of the division of Korea, on the other hand, would make for instability, fear and suspicion, and dreadful and costly efforts at armament. The United Nations, therefore, must remain loyal to the declared objective, that is, the establishment of a united and independent Korea.
120. In the Far East, my country occupies a position as central and important as the position of Germany in Europe. It is impossible to promote peace and security along the fringe of China if the communist regime remains in control of the mainland. Some of the free nations have already devoted considerable blood and treasure to ward off communist aggression, not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Malaya. I humbly submit that these sacrifices cannot create an enduring peace so long as the mainland of China remains behind the Iron Curtain.
121. Press reports in recent weeks and months have stressed the so-called five-year plan of the Chinese Communists and economic aid from the Soviet Union to its puppet. I wish to call the attention of the General Assembly to one important feature of all these economic plans. That feature is the emphasis put upon the development of the north-west and southwest of my country. The work of construction in the north-west paves the way for further Soviet penetration and exploitation of the resources of that vast region. The work of construction in the south-west, such as the building of railways to the border of Indo- China and towards the border of Tibet, is relatively unimportant for the well-being of the Chinese people, but very important in the development of imperialism towards South-East Asia.
122. In international relations, the traditional and universally accepted principle in China is "live and let live”. In the long history of my country there were, of course, periods when Chinese armies occupied and conquered neighbouring lands, when Chinese emperors sought glory through the expansion of empire. These periods were the Han dynasty, the first part of the Tang dynasty and the first part of the Ming dynasty. I should like to call the attention of the Assembly to two important features of ancient Chinese imperialism. In the first place, the conqueror-emperors of China never tried to impose Chinese ways of life on the neighbouring peoples. How the subject peoples lived and worshiped their gods was not considered the business of the imperial power to control or regulate. The second important feature of historical imperialism in China is that the philosophers and poets of my country never joined in approving imperialism. In all China’s literature, there is not a single poem or philosophic essay approving of imperialism. On the contrary, Chinese writers have stressed the misery which conquest and war involve and the hatred which conquest has generated among China’s neighbours. The final result of China’s historical development was a policy of defending China and the Chinese ways of life for the Chinese people and letting other countries alone.
123. Now, under the Communists, the traditional principle governing China’s international relations is reversed. In this respect, the communist regime is as un-Chinese as in its domestic politics. The Chinese Communists, instead of preserving the pacifism inherent in Chinese culture, are reviving the views and ambitions of the conqueror-emperors of old, under the guise of “liberation”.
124. Representatives from countries of South-East Asia must know that there are in their countries right now underground Chinese communist organizations. They must know that some of their fellow countrymen are right now being trained by the Chinese Communists in the arts of political subversion and guerrilla warfare. The representatives of these countries know, or ought to know, that when the Chinese Communists speak of friendship between China or India, or between China and Burma, or Ceylon and Indonesia, the Chinese Communists make a significant distinction; they befriend not the governments of these countries, but the peoples, and they add that these peoples are suffering under exploitation. The revival of imperialism by the Chinese Communists is one of the most basic facts in Asia today.
125. How does Mao Tse-tung himself feel about this matter? In the winter of 1945, shortly after the surrender of Japan, Mao published a poem. He is very proud of that poem. He presents autographed copies to his followers and friends. Let me read to you two stanzas of what Mao has to say on this matter. “There spreads the land in winter’s northern light, For thousands of ice-bound miles the whirling dance Of snowy mist holds it as in a trance. Behold, beyond the Great Wall a blanket of white, And up and down the Yellow River the flight Of raging torrents, the choppy rugged plains, And the snow-clad mountains’ silvery manes— How they heave and arch to reach the heaven’s height! “These lands, these rivers, their bewitching charm Inspired the conqueror-emperors of Ch’in and Han, Tang and Sung, in splendour striving to expand. Alas! All short of stature! And even Genghis Khan Knew only how to shoot a hawk for play. For the towering figure watch the scene today!” Mao thinks that he, in the middle of the twentieth century, can outshine the conqueror-emperors of the remote past. As a part of the communist repudiation of the Chinese traditional culture, Mao discards the Confucianist condemnation of war and imperialism.
126. Some people say that, since the Soviet Union and the satellite States are already in the United Nations, the addition of communist China would not make much difference. I contend that, if the peoples of the world in 1944 and 1945 had had the knowledge of the Soviet Union which they have today, the United Nations would have been differently organized, most likely without the participation of the Soviet Union. The question which the General Assembly should consider is not the admission of Red China but the expulsion of the Soviet Union. Some people argue that the admission of the Chinese Communists into the United Nations does not imply approval. They say that it is nothing more than the recognition of a fact, just as the Himalaya mountains or summer heat or winter cold are facts. In the history of my country there have been a number of dictators who established new dynasties and appeared, for a time, to possess some measure of permanence. Many of these dynasties were short-lived, only mushrooming in seeming vigour. In fact, in Chinese history, the number of short-lived dynasties is much larger than the number of long dynasties.
127. Nothing the United Nations does can be or should be divorced from morals, however we might try to rationalize our conduct. We cannot escape the consequences, be they good or bad. In the present instance, the consequence of the admission of the Chinese Communists would be the consolidation of that regime and the enhancement of its prestige, not only in China but throughout Asia.
128. The Chinese people know the communist regime to be both a tyranny and a foreign imposition. We are determined to win back both our national independence and our basic human freedom. We have not asked the United Nations to give us aid in this struggle, which is in strict accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. We ask the United Nations not to add to the difficulties and the burdens of the Chinese people. If we are ever to understand the strategy of peace in the Far East, the United Nations must recognize that the struggle of the Chinese people today is, in fact, a part of the world struggle for an enduring peace.