The right of representation of my government in the United Nations should not be called into question at all. The Republic of China is one of the founding members of the United Nations. Mr. President, it should be remembered by all that the establishment of the United Nations was only made possible by the common victory of the United Nations over the Fascist powers in the second world war. Towards that victory, my government and people sacrificed 3,600,000 lives; that sacrifice was no mean contribution. At the time, the entire free world gladly acknowledged China's share in the overthrow of the Fascist powers. For this reason, China took part in the preliminary drafting of the Charter of the United Nations at Dumbarton Oaks. For this reason, the Republic of China is named in Article 23 of the Charter to be one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Yet today, some delegations, forgetting history, want to call into question the right of representation of my government in this world organization.
China's Sacrifice
Since the establishment of the United Nations in San Francisco 16 years ago, my government has fulfilled the obligations of membership and has played an honorable part in all its organs. The delegation of the Republic of China has consistently striven to uphold the principles and ideals of the Charter. Nobody can say that China is unworthy of membership in the United Nations and nobody has ventured to say such a thing.
The government which my delegation has the honor to represent in the United Nations today is the legitimate continuation of the government of China represented in. San Francisco. It is based on a constitution drafted and passed by people's deputies, elected by the 600,000,000 people of China. The President and Vice-President of my government are elected by these same people's deputies. The executive is responsible to a legislature, whose members are also elected by the people of the entire country. My government is a constitutional government. It is composed, in both its executive and legislative branches, of leaders elected by the people or the people's deputies. Whether examined from the viewpoint of constitutional law or from the viewpoint of the principles which the United Nations must uphold, my government is above reproach.
Those delegations which advocate a change in the representation of China do so not because of legal or political faults or' defects in my government; they do so on the sole ground that there has been established on the mainland of China a Communist regime. This is the sole reason for this debate. The question: Do the Chinese Communists have a legitimate claim to the seat of China in the United Nations? My government and people say that the Communists have no legitimate claims of this kind. Let me state why.
The matter can be stated in one sentence: The Chinese Communist regime is un-Chinese in origin and un-Chinese in nature and purpose. It, therefore, cannot represent China.
The Chinese Communist party was organized in 1921 by the Soviet agent Voitinsky. It was nurtured by another Soviet agent under the assumed name of Maring. The Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung has testified to the debt that his party owes to the Soviet Union. In his Chinese Communist handbook on party organization, chapter 6, section II, Mao stated:
"The Chinese Communist party was born with the help of the Communist international, and the Chinese revolution developed under the guidance of the Communist international. The Chinese Communist party and its central committee, with the exception of the two short periods under Chen Tu-hsiu-ism and Li Li-san's party line, have been loyal to the guidance of the Communist international. The central committee in the periods under Chen Tu-hsiu-ism and Li Li-san's party line did not obey the Communist international, thereby bringing about the failure and the great setback of the revolution of 1930. To carry out the international line and to be loyal to the executive committee of the Communist international is to guarantee the success of the Chinese revolution."
Creature of Soviet
In short, the Chinese Communist party is a creature of the Communist party of the Soviet Union.
Now let me turn to the Communist regime. The present Communist regime on the mainland of China was established with the military and economic aid of the Soviet Union. It is the fruit of Soviet infiltration, subversion and military intervention in China. I had occasion to present the facts substantiating these charges to the General Assembly at its fourth, fifth and sixth sessions when the item of Soviet aggression against my country was under consideration. I do not want to repeat these facts. They are in the records of the United Nations. Let me present in a summary fashion the salient points of Soviet aggression against my country.
Towards the end of the second world war, in order to hasten that end, the Soviet Union was asked to join the war against Japan in the Far East. China and the Soviet Union became, for that purpose, allies. For that purpose, the two countries signed a treaty of friendship and alliance in August, 1945. The agreements annexed to the treaty provided inter alia the following obligations:
* "In accordance with the spirit of the afore mentioned treaty (that is the Sino-Soviet treaty), and in order to put into effect its aims and purposes, the government of the U.S.S.R. agreed to give China its moral support as well as aid in military supplies and other material resources, such support and aid to be entirely given to the National Government as the central government of China." (exchange of notes, I.A. (1)).
* "In the course of the conversations regarding Dairen and Port Arthur and regarding the joint operation of the Chinese Chang-chun railway, the government of the U.S.S.R. regarded the Three Eastern Provinces (that is, Manchuria) as part of China and reaffirmed its respect for China's full sovereignty over the Three Eastern Provinces and recognized their territorial and administrative integrity." (exchange of notes I.A. (2))
On 9 August, 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and the Soviet army began to march into the northeastern provinces of China, commonly called Manchuria. On 14 August, 1945, exactly five days after the Soviet Union entered the war, Japan capitulated.
Following Japan's capitulation, the Soviet army was in occupation of the whole area of Manchuria till May, 1946. During the conference at Moscow leading to the conclusion of the Sino-Soviet treaty, Marshal Stalin stated that Soviet troops would commence to withdraw from Manchuria within three weeks after the capitulation of Japan and that three months would be the maximum for the completion of the withdrawal. These statements were recorded in the minutes and duly initialed. The Soviets violated their pledge of immediate withdrawal.
The three northeastern provinces of Manchuria constitute the richest region of China both agriculturally and industrially. Their communication with China proper depends on two ports, Dairen and Yingkow and on a single railway passing through the important pass Shanhaikwan.
Use of Ports Denied
In order to re-establish its authority in Manchuria, it was necessary for the Chinese government to transport troops into the region. The Soviet army in occupation, under one pretext or another, denied my government the use of these ports and hampered the use of the single railway leading from China proper into Manchuria.
Instead of giving moral and military aid to the central government of China as the Soviet Union was obliged to do under the treaty of friendship and alliance, the Soviet Union obstructed the efforts of my government in re-establishing its authority over the three northeastern provinces. On the other hand, the Soviet army in occupation immediately proceeded to give aid to the Chinese Communists.
In the first month of the occupation of Manchuria, from 9 August to 9 September, 1945, the Soviet army captured from the Japanese army 594,000 prisoners of war, 925 airplanes, 369 tanks, 35 armored cars, 1,226 pieces of field artillery, 4,836 machine guns, 1,000,000 rifles, 133 radio sets, 2,300 motor vehicles, 125 tractors, 17,497 horses and mules, and 742 depots with munitions and supplies included. In addition, at the time of its surrender, the Japanese Kwantung army had in its depots 1,436 pieces of field artillery, 8,989 machine guns, 11,052 grenade throwers, 3,078 trucks, 104,777 horses, 21,084 supply cars, 815 special vehicles, and 287 command cars. These captured equipment and supplies were not transferred to the Chinese government. Neither were the surrendered items.
Source of Supply
Shortly after V-J Day, the Chinese Communist forces under the command of Lin Piao infiltrated into Manchuria in large numbers, amounting to about 200,000 men. All of them were unarmed. A short time afterwards, these 200,000 men were all fully armed with Japanese equipment and supplied with Japanese munitions. Since the equipment and supplies of the Japanese forces in Manchuria were either captured by or surrendered to the Soviet forces, the Chinese Communist forces at that time could have only one source of supply—namely, the Soviet army.
In 1949, 1950 and 1951, I presented these and other facts to the successive General Assemblies. On 1 February, 1952, by its resolution 505 (VI), the General Assembly made the finding that "the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics obstructed the efforts of the National Government of China in reestablishing 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."
The Chinese Communists enthusiastically acknowledged the military and economic aid which they had received from the Soviet Union. On 11 July, 1949, Chu Teh, the so-called commander-in-chief of the Chinese Communist army, declared: "It can be easily seen that the victory of the Chinese people's democratic revolution is inseparable from the friendly aid of the Soviet Union." One month later, on 17 August, 1949, Kao Kang, the secretary of the Manchurian bureau of the Chinese Communist party, stated at a public conference in Mukden that "the reason why the people of China are able to achieve such single victories is because of the aid extended to us by the international group headed by the Soviet Union." Again on 1 September, 1949, in an article in the Cominform Journal, published in Bucharest, Rumania, Chu Teh stated that the Communist victory in China would have been impossible if not for the "most sincere fraternal and friendly help of the Soviet Union."
Soviet Aggression
Mr. President, it is clear that the Communist regime on the mainland of China is the fruit of Soviet military intervention in my country. As such, it is the fruit of Soviet aggression against my country. In asking the General Assembly to give the seat of China to their proteges, the Soviets are really asking for the international recognition and approval, or at least acceptance, of their handwork.
In these years when we see the liquidation of western colonialism in Asia and Africa, we are deeply troubled by the specter of the rise of a new Soviet colonial empire. What we have on the Chinese mainland may be called the classical example of the new threat to the peace of the world and the rights of peoples. If the United Nations should ever yield to the demands of the Soviet Union, this world organization would be negating its own principles and ideals. The United Nations could not admit the Chinese Communists and at the same time remain true to its mission.
Those delegates who urge us to admit the Chinese Communists into the United Nations often shed crocodile tears over the 600,000,000 people of China for their alleged tack 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 600,000,000 Chinese men and women on the mainland during the last twelve years. The Chinese people have suffered much from the tyrants in the long history of China, but they have never suffered so much as they have under the Communist regime.
In the first five years of their rule, in order to consolidate their power, the Communists liquidated 20,000,000 people whom they considered counter-revolutionary. Two years ago, in fulfilling their so-called "leap forward" movement, they drove millions of men and women to work in the backyard furnaces to produce iron and steel. With the institution of the so-called people's communes, the Chinese people were reduced to the status of "animals in a zoo," to use the characterization of the Indian scholar, Dr. Chandrasekhar. 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 families, but 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 12 to 14 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. Although in recent months some of the harsher features of the commune have been softened, the basic structure remains. Over the fate of such people, let us shed real human tears for their suffering and not for their lack of representation in the United Nations.
Expression of POWs
On this issue, Mr. President, the, will of the Chinese people has been made clear. It has been expressed through the Chinese prisoners of war in Korea, of whom about 75 per cent, or 14,000 chose of their own free will to be repatriated to Taiwan and not to the mainland of China. It has been expressed through the Chinese people who have fled and are fleeing daily from the mainland to freedom in Hongkong and Macao.
On previous occasions, I stated to the Assembly that if the Chinese people, the 600,000,000 Chinese people should be free to vote, supervised by the United Nations, to choose their representation in the United Nations, my government would abide by the results of such a plebiscite. I renew the statement now.
In the last three years, the world has learned a great deal of the brutal oppression practiced by the Chinese Communists in Tibet. Mr. President, they have done nothing in Tibet which they have not done in China proper. To let the Communist regime on the mainland of China take the seat of China in the United Nations would be a cruel blow to the real sentiments of the Chinese people.
After 12 years of imitating the policies and practices of their teachers in the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communists have brought the 600,000,000 people of China to the verge of starvation. The Communist regime is, at this moment, at its weakest and is hated by the Chinese people more than at any time since its establishment 12 years ago.
Political Prestige
If, at this moment, the United Nations should admit the Chinese Communists, this world organization would be conferring on the oppressors of the Chinese people political prestige, which will be exploited by them for the continuation of oppression.
In considering the question of the admission of the Chinese Communists to the United Nations, we must ever keep in mind the requirements as stated in Article IV of the Charter. The first and preliminary requirement is that membership in the United Nations is open only to peace-loving states. Is the Communist regime on the mainland of China "peace-loving"? We cannot forget that that regime participated in the aggression against Korea. For that act of aggression, the Assembly, in its resolution 498 (V), condemned the Chinese Communists as aggressors. I do not have to remind the Assembly that that resolution is still on the books. The United Nations cannot condone aggression.
If anyone still has any illusions about the Communists' qualifications for membership in this respect, let him be reminded of the use of force by the Chinese Communists in their border disputes with India. The government of India, under the leadership of Mr. Nehru, has certainly, I humbly submit, gone out of its way to befriend the Communist regime on the mainland. Nevertheless, Mao Tse-tung had no qualms about disturbing the peaceful relations which China and India had enjoyed for 3,000 years. China's neighbors in Southeast Asia are fully aware of the efforts at infiltration, subversion and aggression directed by the Chinese Communists against them. The distinguished representative of the Philippine delegation, in his speech in the General Assembly on 17 October, clearly expressed the anxiety of his government in this respect.
The Chinese Communists themselves are more frank about this matter than their apologists in this hall. In an article entitled "Long Live Leninism!", appearing in the 16 April, 1960 issue of Red Flag, the organ of the central committee of the Chinese Communist party, it is unequivocally declared that war is inevitable and that some wars are desirable. Mao Tse-tung, in his coldblooded way, figures out that in a nuclear war, even if China should lose 300,000,000 of its population, the Chinese Communist regime would come out of it the most populous and powerful in the whole world.
Peiping's Bellicosity
It is frequently argued that without the participation of the Chinese Communists in the work of the United Nations, disarmament cannot be achieved. This type of argument has been advanced as realism. Mr. President, could anybody really believe that the participation of the Chinese Communists would promote or facilitate disarmament? Just the contrary. The Chinese Communists are, at this moment, even more bellicose than their Russian comrades, if that is possible. They have applauded the resumption of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union. In regard to inspection and control, the Chinese Communists take exactly the same stand as the Soviet Union.
I have stated that the admission of the Chinese Communists to the United Nations would add political prestige to the Communist regime on the mainland of China for the continued oppression of the Chinese people. It is also clear that the admission of the Chinese Communists would confer on them additional international prestige which would be exploited by the Chinese Communists for the intimidation and subjugation of China's neighbors. These would be the inevitable consequences of the admission of the Chinese Communists.
The issue we are debating, Mr. President, not only affects the destinies of the peoples of Eastern Asia; the issue puts on trial the United Nations itself. The decision of the Assembly on this question will expose to the world whether this organization still stands for the principles of the Charter.
I trust that the delegates to the 16th session of the General Assembly will not allow this organization to be exploited by the Soviet Union as a piece of diplomatic machinery for the extension of the new Soviet colonial empire.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: Ambassador Tingfu T. F. Tsiang presented the Republic of China's position on the so-called Chino's representation issue at the December 1 meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. As he remarked, more than the fate of East Asia was involved: "the issue puts on trial the United Nations itself." Because of its supreme importance to the world, the historic address of Dr. Tsiang is presented in full.