Taiwan Today

China's Contribution to Hungarian Relief
 
Following is the text of a letter dated 23 November 1956 from Dr. T. F. Tsiang, to the UN Secretary-General concerning China's contribution to the relief of Hungarian refugees:
With reference to your telegram dated 15 November 1956, I have been instructed by my Government to inform you that the Chinese Government is ready to contribute 200,000 pounds of rice, 100,000 pounds of sugar and 10,000 pounds of black tea for the relief of Hungarian refugees who have escaped from Hungary. The Chinese Government undertakes also to pay for the transport expenses of the above-mentioned relief goods. The total contribution is roughly equivalent to 50,000 U.S. dollars.
Since the details concerning the destination and delivery of the relief goods, remain to be worked out between your office and mine, it will be much appreciated if you would designate a person to consult with Mr. Liu Yu-wan, Director of this Office.
I would like to add that popular bodies in my country are collecting contributions towards the relief of Hungarian refugees. Their contributions would be in addition to that of my Government.
 
Address by Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang, Acting Chairman of the Delegation of the Republic of China, before the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 26, 1956
 
Mr. PRESIDENT:
I wish, first of all, to congratulate Your Royal Highness for being elected unanimously to the Presidency of the Assembly. We of the Delegation of China are particularly happy because China and Thailand are truly brotherly nations.
The Eleventh Session of the General Assembly meets under the shadow of two great crises—one in Europe and the other in the Middle East. Since my Delegation has had occasion to state its views both in the First and in the Second Emergency Sessions, I will not go into details in the present statement. However, I wish to make some general observations.
In regard to the crisis in the Middle East, the First Emergency Session has achieved a cease-fire and firm commitments of with­drawal of their troops on the part of France, Great Britain and Israel. Although important steps remain to be taken, my Delegation believes that the United Nations has reason to be gratified over the modest measure of success that it has had. There is no doubt that the prestige of the United Nations has been enhanced by the prompt and effective action taken. My Delegation fervently hopes that the process of the restoration of peace in the Middle East should be completed in good time. The threat of the so-called volunteers from the Soviet Union and the communist regime on the mainland of China must be met and removed. We cannot allow the peace in the Middle East to be torpedoed by communist intrigue at this hour.
The success of the United Nations in meeting the crisis in the Middle East has an important lesson for us all. Mr. President, it is my conviction that we owe our success largely to the fortunate fact that the peoples of France, Great Britain and Israel have free­dom of information and that their govern­ments are responsive to world public opinion. Factually, what the First Emergency Session did was to mobilize world public opinion. If the people in these three countries did not have full information in regard to the events in the Middle East or if the Governments of France, Great Britain and Israel should be insensitive to outside opinion, we would have been lost. This crisis in the Middle East demonstrates conclusively the intimate connection between peace and freedom. Freedom is the medium in which the United Na­tions can function successfully. Without freedom the United Nations would be a voice crying in the wilderness. This is my first general observation in regard to the Middle East.
I wish to make a second one. It is the conviction of my Delegation that we should capitalize on the mobilized public opinion of the world to remove the causes of war in the Middle East. This world organization of ours is human, all too human. When we face political disputes or see injustices com­mitted by one country against another, we do not regard such events as emergencies. We go about our work in a leisurely fashion. We resort to compromises and delays. If our resolutions should be unheeded, we let the matter drag. Sir, in the long run, the United Nations cannot keep the peace without redressing the wrongs done as they are being done. Any further shirking of our respon­sibilities in the Middle East might jeopardize the very existence of our Organization. Since at this moment world public opinion is mo­bilized on the Middle East, let us take advantage of our moral resources and make a supreme effort to settle the Palestine Question and the Suez Canal Question. I am glad to observe that the very first speech in this general debate delivered by the distinguished Representative of Brazil made the same plea to the Assembly.
Let me now pass on to the tragic events in Hungary. I wish, first of all, to pay homage to the heroic people of that country. Their struggle should teach the world several lessons. In the first place, it teaches that Marxism and Leninism, plus or minus Stalinism, are not a substitute for bread and butter or for individual freedom or for na­tional independence. Secondly, the events in Hungary show that the innate human love for better life, for freedom and for country cannot be suppressed even through ten years of brainwashing and indoctrina­tion. The events in Hungary should teach all lovers of freedom not to be defeatists. The cause is not lost. The people in Hungary and the peoples of all other communist lands, though oppressed, have not become non-human. They have not forgotten and will not forget these deep human yearnings. They are on our side, the side of freedom. We need not despair, no m1ltter how dark the present prospect in Hungary is.
The tragedy of Hungary has taken off the mask from international communism. The armed intervention of the Soviet Union in Hungary and the brutal manner in which the armed forces of the Soviet Union have acted reveal to the whole world the real na­ture of contemporary Soviet imperialism. To hide Soviet imperialism and colonialism under the mask of socialism or communism is no longer possible. The expansion of the Soviet empire means the extension of communism; the extension of communism in turn means the expansion of the Soviet empire. With the Soviet Union, communism and imperialism are but two sides of the same coin, and both sides depend ultimately on brute force.
In recent years international communism has conducted what is usually called a peace offensive. In that propaganda campaign the idea of peaceful co-existence has played a large part. Hungary asks for independence and neutrality. The Soviet Union cannot tolerate an independent and neutral Hungary. We now know the real meaning of the Soviet idea of co-existence. Deeds speak louder and more truly than words.
My Delegation has supported every resolution in connection with the Hungarian crisis as we have supported every resolution in connection with the Middle East crisis. Unfortunately our resolutions on the situa­tion in Hungary have been ignored by the Soviet Union. The difficulty is that the people in Russia have no freedom of informa­tion. They do not know what their government has been doing in Hungary, or what the outside world thinks of these atrocities of their government. On the surface it looks as if the United Nations is totally ineffective in regard to the situation in Hungary. It looks as if we have done nothing but make speeches and pass resolutions. In the meantime, the people of Hungary get killed and enslaved and deported to Siberia as if we had not made speeches and passed resolutions. Mr. President, I do not believe that is the total picture. I think sooner or later the Soviet Union must yield to public opinion. For this reason, I am not ready to quit. I believe we should press forward.
After these massacres in Hungary and after these rebuffs which the United Nations' has received, I believe we should make it clear, unmistakably clear once and for all, to the whole world that we delegates to this Assembly, representing peoples and countries from all, parts of the world, condemn the Soviet Union for, its violation of the Charter and of human rights in Hungary. We should make a solemn declaration that the Soviet Union is for this reason unfit for member­ship in the United Nations. Since for tech­nical reasons it is difficult to expel the Soviet Union, we should and we can decide on moral ostracism.
Now, Mr. President, I wish to turn the attention of the Assembly to Asia. First of all, three neighbours of China-Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Viet­nam—are not yet members of the United Nations. They are entitled to membership. My Delegation presses for their admission.
Delegates to the successive assemblies must have noticed that the question of co­lonialism has played an important part in the deliberations in the United Nations since its very foundation. Delegations from Asia and Africa have been particularly energetic in removing the remains of colonialism from that part of the world. I wish to make a few observations on this anti-colonial movement.
My Government and my Delegation have in the last ten years taken a consistent stand on this question. We have been consistently anti-colonial. So far as this is concerned, my Delegation is united with the delegations of other countries of Asia and Africa. I do not wish to leave any possibility of doubt in the minds of anybody in regard to this matter. China, Nationalist China, is anti-colonial.
When I assumed my duties as the repre­sentative of my country in the Security Coun­cil in the fall of 1947, the first dispute that I had to consider was a complaint of Egypt against the continued presence of British garrison troops in the Canal Zone. That was nine years ago. On that occasion my Delegation joined with the Delegation of Colombia in urging early negotiations be­tween Egypt and Great Britain for the removal of British troops from Egyptian soil.
In 1948 the Security Council met many times to consider the Indonesian struggle for independence. In relation to that question my Delegation was second to none in its sup­ port of the cause of Indonesian freedom.
Before the Second World War, we began to sympathize with the Korean people in their struggle for independence. After the War, we have given Korea all the support within our means. We would like to see the United Nations complete its sacred mission of the unification of Korea.
Outside the United Nations, even before the establishment of the United Nations, my Government showed the fullest sympathy to the people of India in their struggle for freedom. I acknowledge that the people of India won their freedom mainly and largely through their own efforts. The Indian people, on their part, must acknowledge that Chinese sympathy with and support of their cause was genuine and at considerable sacri­fice.
Mr. President, I state these facts for one purpose alone, to show that my Government has been consistently anti-colonial. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the great leader of Free China, taught us to give help to'" all oppressed peoples. We ourselves, having suffered from colonialism, naturally sympathize with and support movements for national independence.
In regard to colonialism, China, however, differs from some of the other Asian countries in several respects. The differences are as important as the similarities.
European colonialism in the last four centuries was divided into two movements. One movement of colonial expansion was in­itiated and promoted by the countries of Western Europe. They crossed vast expanse of sea and ocean to dominate and control countries in Asia and Africa. In meeting this movement the countries in the south of Asia stood in the forefront. They were the first victims. Indeed, many of the countries of southern Asia have known no other type of colonialism, and therefore their animosi­ties are almost exclusively directed to countries of Western Europe.
However, parallel with the maritime expansion of Western Europe to southern Asia, there was the overland expansion of Russia to Asia, from the Urals to the Pacific and, from the Arctic to Northern Vietnam. There has been no break between autocratic Tsarist Russia and totalitarian Soviet Union. China, by her very geographical situation, has been the victim of both colonial movements—that from Western Europe and that from Russia, and is therefore in better position to judge than many other countries in Asia and Africa.
Mr. President, empire-building is highly competitive. The overseas expansion of West­ern Europe and the overland expansion of Russia have reacted one on the other. In the second half of the 19th Century, the two movements met in Central Asia, China and Korea. The First World War put a temporary stop to that world-wide rivalry. Since the Second World War, the two colonial movements have taken directly opposite di­rections, that of Western Europe in rapid retreat and that of the Soviet Union in ag­gressive advance. This is the most important single fact facing the world today, a fact which some of the Asian and African delega­tions have for some strange reason chosen to ignore.
Since the Second World War, out of the colonial domain of the Western powers, a large number of independent nations have risen. Right in this Assembly there are eighteen delegations whose countries were before the War colonies of the Western powers. On the other hand, the Soviet Empire is today infinitely bigger than it ever was under the Tsars. At this very moment this empire is using brutal force to put down Hungary's independence and is feverishly trying to ex­tend its tentacles into the Middle East. In­ deed, in the world today, there is only one colonialist and imperialist movement, that of the Soviet Union.
During the postwar period, while China has shown sympathy to countries of Asia and Africa who have suffered from maritime colonialism, many of the countries of Asia and Africa have not appreciated the evils of Soviet imperialism, which continues Tsarist overland expansion, and, therefore, have failed to give my country that sympathy and support which we have readily given to them. I understand the situation. I appreciate the psychology of the peoples who have suffered from the colonialism of Western Europe. It is time that these sister countries of China should understand and appreciate the dangers and the difficulties of China facing So­viet colonialism.
In former times since the countries of southern Asia failed to stop the expansion of Western Europe on their shores, we in China had eventually to meet the same threat. Today if China fails to regain her freedom and to rid the mainland of Soviet imperialism, in time those countries of Asia and Africa which are geographically more distant from Soviet Russia will yet suffer. Our struggle is immediately for Chinese free­dom. In the long run, our struggle is also for Asian and African freedom.
I wish success to all anti-colonial movements and hope that the day is not far off when the whole world will be rid of this evil. However, I must put in at this point a warning. We in Asia and Africa who have recently overcome colonialism or about to remove the last traces of colonialism must our­ selves be on guard and not practise colonialism on our own part. The freedom that we claim from European nations, East and West, that same freedom we should grant and guarantee to our own Asian and African neighbours. Whenever we have territorial disputes, let us come to the United Nations. Let us settle such disputes peacefully. Let us allow the people in the disputed areas the freedom of choice.
There is another difference between Chinese anti-colonialism and the anti-colonialism of some of the other Asian and African countries. In China Dr. Sun Yat Sen, Father of the Republic of China and the creator of modern Chinese nationalism, had a constructive program to take the place of colo­nial and imperialist relations between China and the West. He was as fervent in fighting against imperialism as in advocating a constructive approach to the economic relations between China and the West. Dr. Sun Yat Sen advocated the international development of China. On the surface it might seem a paradox that this supreme nationalist and socialist leader of modern China should call for the international development of China's resources. He meant that China could profit and the world could profit by economic cooperation. Dr. Sun Yat Sen was not afraid of foreign capital or foreign technicians. He wished the new China to welcome foreign capital and foreign technicians.
To be sure, China might industrialize herself by her own efforts. If that should be tried, it would take more than a century. Dr. Sun was in a hurry, the Chinese people are in a hurry to get industrialization. The natural accumulation of capital in China is terribly slow. The belts of the Chinese peo­ple are as tight as they could be. It would be inhuman for the government to force the people to tighten their belts still more so that China might, by a few five-year plans, catch up with the industrialized nations of the West.
The example of industrialization in the Soviet Union has almost no meaning for most Asian and African countries. It is frequently forgotten that Bolshevik Russia got a rich heritage from Tsarist Russia in the form of vast expanse of land and a good industrial and technological base, a heritage richer than what most of the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa have to start with. The ratio of population to land is particularly important. That ratio in the Soviet Union is three to five times more favourable than in most Asian countries. In the Soviet Union it has been physically possible to force the population to accept bare subsistence as a standard of living. If Asian countries should try to follow the Soviet ex­amples, their peoples would be forced to live below their present bare subsistence level. Such a policy is physically impossible as well as morally reprehensible.
We must look at colonialism straight in its face. We must know really what the essence of colonialism is. On the one hand, we must not underestimate its evil. On the other hand, we must not lump together any kind of cultural or economic relationships between East and West as colonialism. In the long run, the only guarantee of real in­ dependence for the countries in Asia and Africa is industrialization. Fortunately for us the capitalists of the West, including Wall Street, understand and appreciate economic interdependence and are ready to meet us halfway. It is to the interest of Asian na­tions as it is to the interest of Western countries to negotiate and arrange just and fair terms of economic cooperation. Let us forget the past and work for the present and the future. Along the path of economic cooperation can be found progress for Asia and Africa and common prosperity for all.
 
Statement by Dr. Tingfu F. Tsiang before the Plenary Meeting of the Eleventh Regular Session of the General Assembly on December 11, 1956
 
My delegation has had several occasions to state our general stand on the general question of the situation in Hungary. I shall try not to repeat myself. The purpose of my present intervention is to state the attitude of my delegation towards the nineteen-Power craft resolution and the amendments, as well as the other draft resolution before the As­sembly.
Before I do that, I would like to take advantage of this occasion to pay a tribute to Austria. It was entirely proper and fit­ting that the representative of Austria should make the first statement in the present debate. The Austrian Government and people are making great sacrifices for the care and relief of the hundred thousand Hungarian refugees. The burden is heavy, but the Austrian Government is carrying out that burden with good, stout-hearted and intelligent efficiency. I think that the United Nations owes a vote of thanks to the Government and people of Austria in this great task of human relief.
My Government has made a modest contribution, and the people of my country are collecting nickels and dimes to help in this great work. I was particularly happy to hear from the representative of Austria that his Government will accept United Nations observers. The best place to observe the events in Hungary is of course Hungary. Unfortunately, that has been impossible, and so far as the prospects for the future are concerned, it seems to be as dark as ever.
The next best place to observe the events in Hungary is Austria. In Austria there are more Hungarian refugees than in any other spot in the world, refugees who have been eyewitnesses to recent events, refugees who have lived under that regime. Then we have in Austria more travellers, tourists and journalists who have been eyewitnesses. There­ fore, next to Hungary, Austria is our best source of information. Now when I say "information", I am not, and I am sure the United Nations is not, interested in diplomatic or strategic secrets. As far as that is concerned, when the United Nations observers go to Austria, it will be very, very unlikely that they will meet with anybody who shares the secrets of Budapest or of Moscow in regard to diplomacy or in regard to mili­tary matters.
No, it is not that kind of information that we are interested in: We want, to know from people big and small, in all professions, the simple facts and the common facts of life. We want to find out what has happened in Hungary since 23 October; why these events have happened; what is the im­mediate occasion for these tragic events; and what is the background of these tragic events?
We want all the facts. We want facts in favour of our thesis and facts against our thesis. We want facts from all kinds of people. We want facts from devout Catholics and we want facts from atheists and agnostics. We want facts and testimony from people who are in favour of Cardinal Mind­szenty. We also will take facts from people who are opposed to Cardinal Mindszenty. And when the United Nations observers get to the spot, I hope they will even use a mi­croscope to locate, if they can, a follower of Esterhazy or a follower of Horthy, or some remnant of the ghost of the Nazi gestapo. Let them bring to us all the facts from all the people. The world wants to know what has happened in Hungary.
I think that this matter is of great im­portance and, therefore, several members of my delegation, during the last weekend, went to Camp Kilmer in New Jersey to talk to the hundreds of Hungarian refugees who have reached the United States. It was not a systematic investigation; it was just casual talk. My friends in the delegation did not go with a questionnaire. They did not try to make, say, a sample study. No, it was a casual haphazard talk with the refugees. And what answers did we get? One of the ques­tions my friends addressed to these refugees was: "Why did you leave Hungary?" And the most common answer to that question was: "Life in Hungary was simply impos­sible". Then we asked some of them how they liked Janos Kadar, and whether they liked Kadar better or worse than Imre Nagy. And the answer to that question was this: they did not like Nagy because Nagy was a Com­munist, but still they could tolerate Nagy because he was still a Hungarian at heart. They disliked Jan or Kadar because he was a Communist and he was no longer a Hungarian.
I would not ask the Assembly to accept this sort of casual investigation. I wish that the Secretary-General would use all the resources at his command to make a thorough investigation. If the conclusions should be against these temporary casual findings of my delegation, well and good. May the world know the truth.
While on this subject of investigation, I would like to add that since the Hungarian refugees are now being sent to different countries, I hope that the Governments re­ceiving these refugees or the public men and public organizations of these countries will make the best use of the opportunity to get the information from these refugees. Let the political scientists, the economists and the sociologists of all the receiving countries interview these refugees. Let them find out from them what has happened in Hungary and why these things have happened. I think that we would be able to compile a body of knowledge that would enlighten the whole world.
Therefore, I am grateful to the Govern­ment of Austria that it has decided, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, to accept United Nations observers.
Now I turn to the nineteen-Power draft resolution. I would like to be frank; I think the resolution has good features and bad features — I am not satisfied that it is suf­ficient. May I mention what I consider to be the weakness of the nineteen-Power draft resolution.
I am not satisfied with the draft resolution, in the first place, because it does not call for the suspension of the present so­-called Hungarian delegation in the Assembly. I know that one vote more or less does not make any material difference in our deliberations or in our resolutions, but I think that the suspension of that delegation would help us to uphold the moral integrity of the United Nations. We cannot and must not condemn the regime of Kadar in Hungary and, at the same time, accept into our bosom the man or the men who are supposed to re­present that regime. We morally contradict ourselves and we confuse the world. Are we against that regime and do we condemn it, or are we half for it and half against it?
I think that no gesture on the part of the United Nations could establish that moral stand better or more clearly than the expul­sion of the so-called Hungarian delegation from the United Nations.
Secondly, I am not satisfied with the draft resolution bec.1use it docs not repeat our stand on deportations; I hope the deporta­tions have stopped — I am not sure. I realize that the co-sponsors of the resolution have in mind that the stand of the United Na­tions on the question of deportations is on record; it stays there; it remains our stand, and therefore repetition may be unnecessary. However, this matter is of such importance that I believe it merits repetition in the pre­sent draft resolution. Why do I say the ques­tion of deportations is so important? I observe that the practice of deportations of masses of the population has become a feature of communism in all countries, beginning with the Soviet Union. It is a permanent institution of international communism; it is not an occasional practice.
I remember that a week or so ago the representative of New Zealand, I believe it was, cited certain facts on the Soviet practice of deportation. Now the satellite States have begun to imitate the Soviet practice. Today, in Western Germany there are 9 million Ger­mans deported by this or that communist regime. Two million Sudeten Germans have been deported to Germany by Czechoslovakia. That a practice so horrible should become so common should be a fact of which the United Nations should not, for a single mo­ment, lose sight. We should repeat, and con­tinue to repeat, that deportation is horrible, must be condemned and must be stopped. I am, therefore, disappointed that the sponsors of this draft resolution found it unnecessary to repeat our stand on deportations.
Now the resolution, in spite of these weaknesses, is a good one; it has the great merit of concentrating the attention of the United Nations on the essential issue before us-that is the responsibility of the Soviet Union for recent events in Hungary. The other matters of which I have spoken are important, but I admit they are not central. The central fact is that the Soviet Union is responsible for the horrible and tragic events in Hungary. At this time the United Nations should pin that responsibility where it belongs.
We have heard many apologies from the Soviet delegation and from other communist delegations. These apologies can be briefly summarized. One apology for the events in Hungary is that the Soviet armed forces were invited into Hungary by the legal Govern­ment of that country, or, to use another phrase, that the Soviet Union responded to the appeal of the legal Government of Hungary. Now so far as the United Nations is concerned, the Government of Premier Nagy on 2 and 3 November appealed to the United Nations, informing this organization that his Government was trying to negotiate for the withdrawal of the Soviet Army. Now Nagy did not appeal to us to help him get the Soviet army into Hungary; Nagy appealed to us to help him get the Soviet army out of Hungary. Then something happened; the Nagy Government disappeared, another Government came into being and that Government appealed to the Soviet Union for the entry of Soviet troops. That is a strange maneuvre; that is a diabolical maneuvre. The Soviet tactics in the modern world are tactics of imperialism and armed intervention by way of communist stooges. There are such stooges in many countries of the world, and who knows which stooges will appeal for intervention by Soviet armed forces? I cannot accept the proposition that, because there was an invitation by a stooge, therefore this matter is completely within the domestic jurisdiction of Hungary and that the United Nations, in debating and trying to right the wrongs, is interfering in the domestic affairs of Hungary.
If we accept that proposition then we will have the world taken over through that device, aggression by way of stooges. That is a serious matter; that is a new tactic, and a new tactic of aggression—a new mode of imperialism. This we cannot tolerate.
Another line of apology which the Soviet delegation and communist delegations have repeated again and again, in connection with the recent events in Hungary, is that they are calling the rebellion a reaction—a putsch. They think they are somehow justified in calling the students and workers of Hungary reactionaries; in fact, according to that ter­minology, the world is full of reactionaries. Only a few men in the Kremlin are progressive.
This reminds me of a little incident in my own family life. A few years ago, when my son came to New York City, he solemnly informed me that this city of New York was very queer. I asked him what was so queer about New York and he said: "Father, New York is full of foreigners". So the Kremlin today tells the world that the world is queer, because it is full of reactionaries.
I am sure if they were frank about it they would say that 95 percent of the Members of the United Nations General Assembly are reactionaries, and I am sure I am one of them. I hope that it will not be too long before the men of the Kremlin discover that they are the only reactionaries in the world, as my son discovered that he was in fact a foreigner among the New Yorkers.
In fact, Communism is the darkest move­ment of reaction in the Twentieth Century; it has repudiated all the progress in modern history from eighteenth century enlighten­ment to contemporary social democracy. And what the Soviet army has done in Hungary is to use armed force to perpetuate a regime of reaction in Hungary.
In this second line of apologia there is an element of truth; and the Assembly would do well to acknowledge this element of truth in the Soviet apologia. That element of truth is this: Without the use of the Soviet army in Hungary Communism would disap­pear; the Communist regime would be over­ thrown because the Hungarian people would have none of it. The use of the Soviet army to defend Communism in Hungary has been necessary; it has been essential. In fact, the Communist regime in Hungary was in the first place imposed by Soviet force. It has been upheld and maintained there by force. As far as that is concerned, what Commu­nist in the world has not been established and maintained by force? Is there a Communist country without an armed secret police, without the practice of terror? Is there any Communist country where people are allowed to have free elections? No. The Soviet Union has been in existence almost forty years and in all those forty years the Soviet Government has not dared to allow the people of Russia to have their free choice.
Communism is a regime of terror and force. If you want to maintain Communism anywhere, you have to use force. Hungary is not an exception. There is nothing pecul­iar about the situation in Hungary in that respect, and when we study Communism in all these countries and see the amount of brutal force that has been used and has been adopted as a major policy of Communism. Without the use of force the collectivization of agriculture could not have been implemented. I think all Members of this Assembly remember the passage in Winston Church­ill's writings when he tells us that Marshal Stalin told him that Stalin's battle against Hitler was not so strenuous or so critical as his battle against what he called the kulaks of his country, that is, in the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union.
In my own country the collectivization of agriculture has meant the liquidation of millions and millions of farmers. If you take armed force from the countryside—from any Communist countryside, the farmers will say: Away with your collective farms; let us work on the farms as free men. That is the situation. Or if you take industrialization­ this kind of forced, one-sided, bureaucratic­ planned industrialization—without terror, the secret police and force, do you think that the peoples of these Communist countries would even accept these so-called five-years? No. Or if you take the war on religion and the Church, in what country under a Com­munist government could this war on reli­gion and the Church be carried on without the use of force? Every basic policy of Communism in the Communist countries has been carried out by the use of armed force. What is there peculiar about the Hungarian situa­tion? Nothing. It is the nature of Communism.
Here in Hungary we have the people rising against that regime. They used their fists to fight against Soviet tanks; and to the surprise of the world—almost all the world­— the Hungarian people are waging not only a heroic fight but a quite successful fight. This struggle between freedom and Commu­nism is being staged in Hungary and that same struggle will be staged in every Communist country in the world.
Now the question before the Assembly is this: Where does the United Nations stand in that struggle between freedom and Communism? What can we do? Shall we accept the plea that this is a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of Hungary and close our eyes and shut our ears against it? I think that if the United Nations ever takes that stand, the United Nations will have committed moral suicide. The peoples of the world would not have a United Nations of that type. In this struggle between freedom and Communism in all the Communist countries, the United Nations must back the fighters for freedom because, after all, freedom is the only and indispensable foundation for world peace. Make no mistake about it, without freedom you will not have peace. Watch the path of conquest of dictators such as Hitler. What did he do before he carried the German people into war? He had to deprive the German people of every shred off freedom. Without controlling the minds of the German people Hitler could not have launched his path of conquest. That is so with all the dictators. And if the peoples of the Communist countries should ever get complete freedom, such as those in the free countries have, it would be seen that war-making would be very difficult.
The common people of all countries are against war, against conquest, against coloni­alism, against imperialism. It is where the people do not have freedom that you have colonialism and imperialism.
The United Nations, I say, in this struggle that is being waged in every Communist country—the struggle between freedom and Communism—must give its moral backing to the fighters for freedom 100 percent. What we can do is not too much. But this moral backing by the United Nations may spell the vital difference between success and failure and that difference may mean so much to the whole world.
For these reasons, therefore, my delega­tion supports the nineteen-Power draft reso­lution, although it is not so strong as we could wish it to be. I believe in taking half a loaf.
Now there are other proposals before this Assembly. There is the idea that we should send the Secretary-General to Moscow to negotiate. I cannot believe that proposal is a serious one. In a matter of this kind, can conciliation and negotiation achieve the re­sults that we expect? I think it is an illusion to believe that a problem of this nature can be smoothed out by conciliatory phrases here and there and by negotiating missions of the Secretary-General. I have the greatest ad­miration for our Secretary-General, but I am convinced that even our own Secretary-General cannot perform miracles in this year 1956.