Whatever else China may or may not have, she has enough history, four thousand years of it. That long history has made the Chinese people very historically-minded. I have therefore thought it useful to present to you at the beginning of my remarks the historical background which colors and conditions much of the thinking on the part of the Free Chinese today.
Facing the present crisis of our country, which is probably the greatest crisis that we have ever faced, we Chinese naturally ask ourselves this question: how did we get rid of tyrannical governments in the past? Of tyrants China has had her share. There have been big and strong tyrants, as well as small and weak tyrants. What is instructive at this moment is the fate of the big and powerful tyrannical dynasties in Chinese history. We have had three such regimes. These three instances can furnish us considerable guidance in the study of present day problems.
The first big and powerful tyrannical regime in Chinese history was that of the Ch'in Dynasty, which lasted from 221 to 207 B.C. As practitioners of totalitarianism the Ch'in Dynasty antedated the Communists and the Nazis by 2,200 years, That dynasty tried to impose on the Chinese people ideological uniformity. It liquidated all non-conformist scholars. It burned all books which presented doctrines at variance with official doctrine. It deprived the civilian population of all arms. It unified the Chinese language, weights and measures and the gauge of all wheeled vehicles. It built the Great Wall. It extended Chinese territory to the southeast coast to include the present province of Canton. It conquered the northern part of present day Vietnam. The Ch'in Dynasty was without question a very powerful dynasty. It was also one of the shortest lived, lasting only 14 years.
The second such instance of a big and powerful tyranny in Chinese history was that of the Hsin Dynasty, which lasted from 9 to 23 A.D. Wang Mang, the founder of the dynasty, confiscated all the estates of the landlords and decreed the nationalization of land in China. His Communism antedated that of Lenin by 2,000 years. His regime lasted only 14 years.
The third instance was that of the Sui Dynasty, 581 to 618. A.D. After two centuries of civil war and barbarian invasions the Sui Dynasty finally drove out the barbarians and unified China. The Chinese Empire became once more the greatest power in East Asia, Emperor Yang-ti, however, allowed his ambition to run wild. F or one thing, he tried to conquer Korea. Year after year he sent expeditionary forces beyond the Yalu. Secondly, he wished to endow his empire with a number of gigantic public works, including the building of the Grand Canal. His regime perished within 23 years.
The Chinese people got rid of these three big and powerful tyrannical regimes entirely by their own efforts, not only without any fraternal aid from Formosa, but also without any economic or military aid from U.S.A. In every one of these instances the Chinese people were driven to this conclusion: it was better to die fighting than to rot under tyranny. They objected to tyranny partly because it was tyranny and partly because under the tyrants they suffered from hunger and famine.
Times have, of course, changed, and history does not repeat itself. Nevertheless, the three instances of overthrow of tyrannical governments by the Chinese people themselves, without any fraternal or foreign aid, do throw some light on present day problems.
Eighty percent of the Chinese people remain to this day farmers, add the life of the farmer in China today is in essentials not too different from the life of the farmer 2,000 years ago. The present day farmer likewise objects to hunger and famine. Furthermore, whenever he suffers from hunger, he blames his government, even though that hunger might be caused by natural disaster, such as a flood or a drought. Chinese emperors down to 1911 were astute enough to attribute publicly natural disaster to their own personal mistakes and sins. It was thought good public relations to decree that sins of the throne had brought about the natural disaster. By so doing, the emperors at least showed contrite hearts and some concern for the welfare of their subjects.
If the Chinese Communists today can fill the rice bowls of the Chinese people, their regime will have a chance to endure. Otherwise, the regime will be shaken. According to all present indications large numbers of the farmers are suffering from famine. The scheme of the Communists to collectivize agriculture will no doubt increase the probabilities of famine. This is the basic weakness of the Communist regime.
Secondly, the farmers of China wish to be left alone. They want to live their own way. They have been left alone for the most part of China's history. It is only tyrants who interfere with their cultivation of the land and their family and neighborhood relationships. But Communism tries to Sovietize not only Chinese politics and Chinese economy. It tries also to Sovietize Chinese culture and Chinese conceptions of the family. Communism is un-Chinese in purpose and nature. It is all interfering. This is the second greatest and basic weakness of the Communist regime.
It is very true that the modern Communist dictatorship has more means of holding down the people than ancient tyrants. Nevertheless, we must realize that China, as a country, is more suited to guerilla warfare than many other countries in the world. Guerilla warfare played a certain part in repulsing the Japanese invasion. It played an important part in the rise of the Communists. Means of central control, such as railways, highways, telephones and telegraphs are not so plentiful in China as some people think. The very industrial under-development of China favors popular uprisings.
As a sensible and realistic man I know that times have changed and that history does not repeat itself. Times have changed to the extent that today, unlike in times past, popular uprisings alone cannot overthrow tyranny. It is for this reason that we Free Chinese, on the island of Formosa and elsewhere, must constitute ourselves the allies of our brethen on the mainland. Without this fraternal help popular uprisings on the mainland will probably fail. With this additional help I believe popular uprisings can do what they have always done in the past.
For this reason, Formosa has a great mission to perform. We who are fortunate enough to be free must furnish the additional fraternal help. It is to this task that we, Government and people, on the island of Formosa have dedicated ourselves.
We are not childish or foolish enough to think that the 9,000,000 people on the island of Formosa can conquer the 450 or 500 million people on the mainland of China. We do not want to conquer our brethren on the mainland at all. We have no quarrel with them. We are their brothers and allies, not their enemies and would be conquerors. When we fight, we will fight only side by side with our people on the mainland. We will never fight against them.
Not only do we not wish to fight against them, but we do not wish to impose any particular political or economic system on them. We have no Bourbon Restoration in mind. Our task is nothing more and nothing less than to help our people on the mainland to recover their freedom. According to the Constitution which we have adopted, the people have the freedom to choose representatives to the People's Convention which has the power of amending the Constitution and electing the President and the Vice-President of the country. According to this same Constitution, the people have the freedom and the power to elect representatives to the Legislative to which the Executive is responsible. After Communism is overthrown, the Chinese people can choose such governors and governing policies as they may then wish.
Viewed in this larger perspective the fate of China will be decided largely by the Chinese people themselves. The nine million Chinese who are fortunate enough to live on the island of Formosa and the thirteen million who live elsewhere outside of the mainland can only be helpers, friends, comrades-in-arms. We do not impose help where help is not wanted. We only pray that when duty calls, we will not fail.
In the meantime, there is one thing we cannot do and should not be expected to do and that is to write off our country and to forget our own people on the mainland. If riots of the type that occurred in Eastern Germany two years ago should occur on the mainland of China, we will not watch events with our hands folded. This much I can assure you. Under such circumstances, we will fight, with all what we have and are. To tell you anything else would be to belie what is in our innermost hearts.
The moral position and the material strength of my Government to be worthy helpers of our suffering brethren on the mainland are the criteria by which we judge all policies and suggestions. Whatever strengthens our moral and material position as helpers, we readily accept and perform. Whatever weakens our moral position and material strength as helpers to our brothers, we will reject and resist.
It has been suggested that my Government should give up the offshore islands. We can· not do that because withdrawal from Matsu and Quemoy weakens our material strength and undermines our moral position. It is strange that people from Yalta to the present time always wish to purchase peace from the Communists by offering them a bribe and that bribe should always be at the expense of China. Hitherto the handsome bribes paid to international Communism by China have not benefited the United States, or even Great Britain, or India, not to mention China herself.
There is also the suggestion, put forth in your leftist press, that the Republic of China should be replaced with the "Republic of Formosa". Such advocates try to create the impression that the people on Formosa must be Formosans and therefore not Chinese.
Here is a typical example of a play on words, Now, Formosa is the Portuguese name for the island. It means simply beautiful island. It is a good name. It has found currency in almost all Western languages. But the Chinese name is Taiwan and has been Taiwan for many centuries. To give a foreign name to this island and then to insinuate that it is somehow foreign to China is either dishonesty or ignorance or both.
Of the 9.000,000 people on the island, about 150,000 are aborigines. Their position in the population is identical with that of the Red Indian in North America. The other 8,850,000 people on the island of Taiwan are Chinese. They have all come from the mainland of China at different periods. Migration from mainland China to Taiwan began as early as the 6th Century, that is, thirteen centuries ago. Large-scale colonialization, however, started only in the middle of the 17th Century.
The provinces of China are like the states in the United States in one respect; your states differ in age; so do the Chinese provinces. The oldest province in China is Honan, some 3,000 years old. Taiwan is among the youngest. It was made a province only in 1885. Here in the United States the younger states have received their population from two sources: (1) migration from the older states, and (2) migration from foreign countries. In China the younger provinces have received their population entirely from the older provinces. That is the case of Taiwan. To call Taiwan Formosa and then to assert that the people of Formosa must be Formosan and therefore not Chinese makes as little sense as to say that the population of California is Californian and therefore not American.
A variation of this same suggestion is that Formosa should be put under a United Nations trusteeship. Now, the system of trusteeship was devised for primitive and backward peoples. To offer the people on the island a UN trusteeship is an insult.
Trusteeship and the "Republic of Formosa" are proposals devised to destroy the legal and moral position of my Government. They are meant to liquidate the Republic of China.
On March 3 of this year Mr. Dulles, your Secretary of State, exchanged at Taipei with Dr. Yeh, my Minister of Foreign Affairs, the ratifications of the Treaty of Mutual Defense between the Republic of China and the United States of America. As of that date the Treaty came into operation and is now binding on the two contracting parties. It should be remembered the Treaty was signed between the United States of America on one side and the Republic of China on the other side. It was not a treaty between the United States of America and Formosa. The distinction is very important. I am surprised that even some of your public men have directly or indirectly favored proposals to liquidate the Republic of China.
The Treaty was the result of long and careful study by both governments. In the course of that study, your leaders, both political and military, Republican and Democrat, came to the conclusion that keeping Formosa and the adjoining Pescadores in friendly hands was vital to the security or the United States. I believe that history will prove them right and wise in that conclusion.
To us Chinese, Formosa and the Pescadores are more than a group of islands of strategic importance. These islands have for us, in addition to their strategic importance, great moral and political meaning on account of their being the seat of the Republic of China. Indeed, the islands would be mere real estate if they should be divorced from the Republic of China. An alliance between the Republic of China and the United States of America, within the scope as defined in the Treaty, has moral value and contributes to the strength of the Free World. An alliance between the United States of America and a piece of real estate would have no moral value and might even turn out to be a source of moral weakness. In this ail important question an exclusively materialistic or strategic approach would be self-defeating.
Aside from these suggestions of withdrawal from Matsu and Quemoy, a "Republic of Formosa", and UN trusteeship, there has been another suggestion that my Government and my people should demonstrate to all Chinese and even to all peoples of Asia that Chinese and Asians can make material and moral progress bigger and faster under conditions of freedom than under Communist dictatorship. This suggestion is entirely acceptable to us. It has been the conviction of my Government and people during all these recent years. We may not have come up to the expectations of our friends in all respects. On the other hand, our friends should not belittle what we have been able to do. Let me just mention briefly what we have done to strengthen our moral position and material strength through our domestic policies.
In the social field we have achieved land reform. We first reduced the rent which the farmers paid to the owners of land. Now we are helping the farmers to buy the land they cultivate. The second stage of the reform is about 70% accomplished, and it is expected to be completed within a year. The farmers on Taiwan are more prosperous, freer and happier than farmers on the mainland of China, and I might add, than farmers in India.
In the political field we have completed the scheme of local self-government. In the fifty years of Japanese rule in Taiwan the Chinese people on the island had no political rights. They were not permitted to elect any public official of whatever kind. Their participation in the administration of the island was very limited. On the day when we took over Taiwan from Japan in the winter of 1945 the island had 110 first-class civil servants, of whom 109 were Japanese and only one was a Chinese. There were 2,070 civil servants of the second-class, of whom 2,043 were Japanese and only 27 were Chinese. There were 20,909 civil servants of the third class, of whom 17.6% were Chinese and 82.4 % were Japanese.
Today the island is divided into sixteen counties. Every county has a magistrate elected by the people of the county and a county council, every member of which is elected by the people of the county. In addition, there are five cities. Each city has an elected mayor and an elected council. The scheme of local self. government on Taiwan is complete. We have made as much progress in democracy as any country in Asia.
In the economic field we have likewise done very well, partly because of the generous economic aid that you have given us. In 1954, the last year of Japanese administration on the island, the total production of rice was for that year 638,000 metric tons. For 1954, rice production reached the figure of 1,700,000 metric tons. Taiwan now exports rice in substantial quantities.
Rice production on Taiwan depends on the supply of chemical fertilizers. Under Japanese rule the highest record in the local production of fertilizers was made in 1939 with 33,000 metric tons. For 1954, the production was 166,000 metric tons.
At the end of the war electric power installations on the island had been largely destroyed by the airforce of the United States. Today we have restored electric power to five times the figure for 1954, and 50 % above the pre-war record. Today 65 % of the people on the island use electric power, both for domestic and for industrial purposes. This is the highest percentage in rural electrification for the whole continent of Asia.
In all these fields there remains much to be done. We welcome suggestions from all quarters. What we have done proves beyond any possibility of doubt that Chinese and Asians in general can make progress, bigger and faster progress, under conditions of freedom than under conditions of Communist dictatorship.
These then are the two tasks that the Government and the people on Taiwan, the Pescadores, and the offshore islands have been trying to achieve. One task is to be able and ready to render fraternal aid to the people on the mainland. The second task is to demonstrate the infinite possibilities of progress through freedom.
How do these tasks affect the peace and freedom of Asia? In answer to this question I would say only two things. First of all, I wish to warn the Free World that Communism on the -mainland of China is a perpetual threat to the peace and freedom of Asia. The Free World may achieve temporary truces with Communism. I do not believe it is possible to achieve a permanent settlement. The Communists may not resort to a big war, because they have found subversion, local wars and diplomacy to be very remunerative, more remunerative than big wars. In spite of the Geneva Agreement of last summer, Southeast Asia is not freed from the Communist threat. A heavy cloud hangs over South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaya and Indonesia. Southeast Asia is weak and troubled, and Communist agents are everywhere, trying to make it weaker and more troubled. Southeast Asia also has vital resources, such as rice, oil and rubber, of which the Communists stand in great need. Southeast Asia is therefore the natural field for Communist expansion. We believe that our fight against Communism in China is the defense of Southeast Asia.
Secondly, I know that many countries in the Free World are not in a position to give my Government and people material help. But there is one plea that I would address to all the free peoples of the world. That plea is this: do not add to the difficulties of China in its struggle for freedom. Diplomatic recognition of the Communist regime adds to its prestige among the Chinese people. Admission of the Communists into the United Nations would boost their prestige both among the Chinese and throughout Asia.
I have represented my country in the United Nations for almost eight years. I am a realist. I have never asked the United Nations for a single dollar or a single rifle for use in the cause of Chinese freedom. I have, however, constantly asked the sixty Member States of the United Nations not to make the struggle for Chinese freedom more difficult than it is. The United Nations is a young institution, not so strong as many of us would wish. But if the United Nations should be made an instrument for extending the power and the dominion of international Communism, free peoples every· where should ask: does the world need such a United Nations?
China occupies a position of central importance in Asia. The peace and freedom of Asia can only be secured through a free China.
Statement by Dr. James Tsune-chi Yu to the 38th Session of the International Labor Conference at Geneva on June 18, 1955
We are once again gathered in beautiful Geneva as representatives of Members of the International Labor Organisation. The discussion of the Director-General's Report affords us an opportunity to exchange opinions on and to make free expressions regarding the problems contained in his Report as well as omitted by him therein. What the Director-General has observed in connection with his main theme, labor-management relations, is all to the good and. in the name of my delegation. I wish to pay him tribute for a piece of work well done. But at the same time I would be failing in my duty as one who has long cherished the high purpose of the I.L.O., if I were not to say to you, fellow delegates, that our Organisation is going through an acid test, a grinding mill and, in truth. a struggle for survival. If we are fit to stand firm on the solid ground of principles we shall not perish. Were we to weaken or to compromise or to surrender at the expense of our principles, the I.L.O. would not—as the defunct League of Nations did not - see the day light after a nightmare. The challenge of our time is not so much between labor and management as between liberty and enslavement; between free enterprise and totalitarian regimentation; between law and lawlessness; between order and disorder; between humanity and inhumanity; and between democracy and communism; in short, between right and wrong.
We should call a spade a spade. We should not lose sight of the major premises. We should have vision into the future while we do or undo what we think best in the interest of lasting peace and the happiness of the workers and employers and representatives of the peoples in the long run.
The International Labor Organisation was born after the First World War and it survived the world's second major catastrophe. It has seen its foster-father, the League of Nations, come and go and it has weathered many a storm and survived as an orphan in it. Why has it been possible for the International Labor Organisation to maintain its existence while the other international organisations have failed to survive? My answer is that the heritage of the I.L.O. of which we are all proud, is neither a holy nor unholy alliance. It is not a triple or quadruple alliance, and it is not a sheer product of the body politic. Its founding fathers had a beautiful dream, a dream of human cooperation and a dream based on the harmonious blending of the social-economic and political forces of mankind. The tripartite principle of the I.L.O. is the cornerstone as well as the foundation of the edifice of that dream. The moment that that principle is forsaken is the moment that the edifice of the I.L.O. will crumble like a house of cards.
Today, we, members of the International Labor Organisation, are confronted with the dilemma as to what is the real worth of our deliberations at this Conference, if we are to ignore its general atmosphere, its health and its growth. I do not think that I am sounding a false alarm if I say to you that the I.L.O. is in imminent danger. Its tripartite principle is being threatened; its raison d’etre is being tampered with; and it has permitted the world in sheep's clothing to enter into the sheep's fold; and it has given the green light to a Trojan horse. I deplore, as many of my fellow delegates do, the participation of certain rightly called Communists and so-called employers and workers in certain committees of the 38th Session of the International Labor Conference. The result is, as we have witnessed at this Conference, that we have found the Employers' delegate of the world's greatest industrial power absent from certain committees in our Conference in exchange for the presence of certain so-called Employers from Communist or puppet Communist regimes. I do not know how my colleagues from free nations feel about this tragedy, but I can tell you that my delegation feels that the I.L.O. at this instance should hoist its flag at half-mast, for one of the ablest Employers' delegates to our Conference has refused to contribute his wisdom to certain committees of our Conference in protest at the presence of those Employers' delegates who do not represent employers any more than I do at this Conference and at this moment.
Ten years ago I had the privilege of participating in the San Francisco Conference where the Charter of the United Nations was drawn up and I knew then, as I do now, how severely the Communist delegates stormed at the International Labor Organisation. Why did they do so? Because the tripartite structure did not fit into their shoes. They wanted to re-organise it, but they could not have their way. Ever since that time, they have been looking at the I.L.O. as a "nail in their eyes". Some delegates have made it crystal-clear that the Communists are here at this Conference for foisting untruths and propaganda. May I say to these delegates in particular, and to all my colleagues from free countries as a whole, that the Communists have come to the I.L.O., not only to utilise it as a means for propaganda but also with the determined purpose to bore from within and to destroy its existence? It is as clear as daylight that in a Communist regime there are no distinctions between government, employers' and workers' representatives. They are all representatives of one thing and one thing only, namely international communism, whose avowed aim is world conquest by overthrowing other governments by violence and subversive activities.
Mr. President, and fellow delegates of all free countries, are we going to be blinded by fanciful words of sophistry that the Communists could possibly co· exist in the I. L.O. or elsewhere? Let us open our eyes to truth and we shall find that all that the Communists have contributed to the I.L.O. so far is their lawlessness and disorder, disruption of the work and interruption of other delegates' efforts to make contributions. In the committees, as well as in the plenary sittings, if they have contributed anything at all it is their contribution to the evidence that they think they are the law and the rulers of procedure.
In the instance Committee of Government Representatives, the Communist delegates were ruled by the Chairman to be out of order on the same point four times, and yet they insisted on monopolising the floor, knowing that they were out of order. Our virtuous and patient Chairman of the Finance Committee threatened to leave the Chair if they did not observe the rules of procedure. Did they obey the Chairmen? Of course they did not. They had their last word and say.
Mr. President, from this rostrum you have heard the language directed against the delegates of various countries, which is so abusive that it is beneath my dignity to comment on it. The Communist delegates at this Conference have employed terms such as "representatives of the Kuomintang clique", "naive beings who understand nothing at all" and "living corpses" for legitimate delegates and member States, and I cannot but agree with a colleague of mine who said that only individuals devoid of respect and devoid of respect for others could possibly indulge in such expressions at international conferences.
Another Communist delegate even indulged in a slanderous fable about a dog and an elephant. May I ask who has played the part of the dog better than the Communists in the whole of human history? Let us remember, as an elephant would, that the high policy of the Communists is, in the last analysis, based on the behavior of a mad dog that runs after you if you begin to run, and stops running after you if you stop and face him squarely. This is no fable; this is a fact. It stands to reason that the only way to lessen the world's tension is for free countries and free peoples not to retreat or to compromise but to take a positive stand against lawlessness and aggression which the Communists have exhibited here and everywhere.
I fervently hope that the committee which is to study the extent of freedom of workers' and employers' organisations from government domination and control will bear in mind what I have just stated on behalf of my delegation and will recommend the necessary steps to rejuvenate our Organisation through constitutional processes. Our love for the I.L.O. gives us the right to hate those who seek to destroy it. We need vision and courage with which to combat international communism, which is not only the arch enemy of the I.L.O. but also the curse and scourge of human civilization.
The danger that threatens the existence of the I.L.O. does not only come from the Communists but also from their tools and stooges who call themselves neutrals and attempt to bridge water and fire. Even in the process of invoking and applying a provision of the I.L.O. Constitution, we have found some of the so-called neutrals from Asia determined to ignore the constitutional provisions on ac· count of their political prejudices. It is curious that falsehoods and fabrications should come from the Government delegate of one country which, in its struggle for independence, had the fullest sympathy of my people, country and Government. Referring to my country, the Burmese Government delegate alleged that my country had committee aggression through the presence of over 10,000 Chinese troops in Burma. I submit that every word of his remarks is a deliberate fabrication. I say to him that no one has to be expert on military affairs to know the truth and the facts of this case which have been discussed and documented at the General Assembly of the United Nations. If the Burmese delegate reads into the pages of history he will find that during the Second World War it was my country that sent its forces to Burma for its liberation. When Burma became independent in 1948, it was my country that received the first flag of independent Burma from the Burmese Government in token of friendship and appreciation. It was my country that sponsored the resolution in the Security Council recommending the admission of Burma to the United Nations; and it was my country that withdrew our troops of occupation from Burma after the last war without the least hesitation. This being the case, how could my country be accused of having committed aggression.
About the alleged presence of over 10,000 guerillas in Burma, as brought forth at the Seventh Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, my Government has done everything possible, in accordance with the recommendation of the United Nations to persuade these guerillas to evacuate, and up to May 1954 more than 6,500 had left Burma. On 18 September 1954 my Government made a declaration that we would neither have any contact with nor give any assistance to the remaining guerillas who refused to accept my Government's persuasion to evacuate. These are the facts and figures eloquently standing out against the falsehoods and falsifications.
The tragedy of the situation is that Burma is not the only country in Asia which is doing its best to destroy my country's independence after we have helped them to gain theirs. In this respect, I regret to say that India is even worse. The moral of it all is that if a country is not faithful to her friends, how can we expect her to be faithful to the International Labor Organisation?
To the Norwegian Government delegate who spoke time and again against our right of representation, and even advocated independence action on the part of the I.L.O., in face of the United Nations decision, I can only say that when his country was controlled by the quislings, my Government and the other governments of the free world never had the faintest idea of giving the puppet regime any recognition. I submit that what he said is not to the enlightened and genuine interest of the I.LO.
All in all, the I.L.O. of today in the eyes of bystanders, as expressed in a recent editorial in "The Times", is as follows: "Much time that should have been spent in constructive discussion has passed in futile wrangling, and the Communist delegates have made no serious contribution. They have made full propaganda use of the platform the Organisation has provided and have carried the debate out of its proper sphere into that of foreign policy. Bodies of this sort can work properly only within the limits of reasonably agreement. A more limited I.L.O. would do better," What limited I.L.O. could we have except one without the participation of the Communists?
As to the prevailing conditions of labor-management relations in my country and on my country's mainland, I believe that our Employers' and Workers' delegates have already given you a clear picture. All that I wish to do is to refer you to a document entitled "Information on Forced Labor in Communist China" which was submitted to the United Nations and copies of which are available for distribution. From that document you will have a sad bird's eye view of what has been going on in the mainland of my country. It is sad to those who are true Chinese, on the mainland as well as in the four corners of the earth, because by nature and tradition my countrymen love their homeland and hate to see that it has become an experimental station of an alien ideology based on force. In a larger measure it is sad to the free world to see that the 4 million square miles of Chinese soil have in fact been turned into a huge slave labor camp. The sum total of atrocities, crimes and violations of the precious Chinese traditions committed by brutal force ever since the Communist occupation of the mainland, I am told, exceeds all the acts of man's inhumanity towards man in the whole history of my country. We who are representatives of civilised peoples—Workers', Employers', and Government representatives alike-have not only a tremendous responsibility to the respective countries that we represent but also a much heavier moral responsibility to our inner selves. May we all be ever true to ourselves.
Statement by Dr. C. L Hsia Before the Economic and Social Council on Item 3: World Social Situation, July 6, 1955
The item under discussion consists of three parts: (1) the report of the Social Commission (E/2758), (2) the International Survey of Programmes of Social Development (E/CN. 5/301) and (3) the report on the International Definition and Measurement of Standards and Levels of Living (E/CN.3/179). My delegation proposes, therefore, to offer its remarks on these subjects in the same order.
I.
The tenth session of the Social Commission had been a most fruitful one. My delegation is particularly impressed by the systematic manner in which the Commission examined its activities in the past and planned work programmes in the future.
During the last few years, the Council and the Commission have laid great emphasis on the closer co-ordination of economic and social activities. The newly constituted Department of Economic and Social Affairs has established the Bureau of Social Affairs which includes the former Social Welfare Division and the Population Division; and this seems a logical arrangement and along the lines suggested by the Council. The Council will also recall that last summer, during the discussion of the organization and operation of the Council and its Commissions, my delegation expressed the hope that in dealing with social aspects of economic development, constant co-operation should be maintained between the Secretariats of the Regional Economic Commissions and the Secretariat at Headquarters. It is gratifying to note that such co-operation has taken place extensively during the last year.
Another point which has been repeatedly emphasized during the discussion of economic and social programmes in recent years is the importance of direct assistance to governments. At present. three types of direct assistance have been rendered to governments: (1) The United Nations Programme of Technical Assistance in the fields of Economic Development, Public Administration and Advisory Social Welfare Services. (2) the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and (3) UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund. While all these programmes are complementary to one another, the Programme of Advisory Social Welfare Services has been a particular concern of the Social Commission. Despite limited resources for the implementation of this programme, it has proved to be one of the most effective measures to improve social conditions of the under-developed countries. While the needs for such services are still great, an increase in resources for this programme within the present budget level of the United Nations seems to be justified.
With regard to the question of "community development", my delegation notes with satisfaction the steady progress achieved in this field since August 1951 when the Council adopted Resolution 390 D (XIII) on the use of community welfare centres as effective instruments to promote economic and social progress throughout the world. The Secretary-General's report to the Social Commission on this subject was based not only on information received from governments following an inquiry, but also on the findings of three regional survey missions which visited community development projects in those regions. The Chinese Delegation, while in general agreement with the recommendations of the Social Commission on this subject, wishes to stress that, first, the careful planning of a balanced programme and, to a large extent, its implementation should primarily be the responsibility of the governments concerned, secondly, in carrying out the multi-purpose projects for community development, close co-operation should be maintained not only between governments and the specialized agencies, but also among the agencies themselves, and thirdly, regional cooperation and mutual studies should be constantly promoted.
II.
I shall now turn to the International Survey of Programmes of Social Development. As we know, this report is a supplement to the Preliminary Re port on the World Social Situation of 1952 and the primary purpose of this survey is to help governments become more familiar with the policies of other governments in the social field. For that reason, the present survey covers social programmes of not only less developed countries, but also of more developed countries, and the emphasis has been on national programmes rather than international programmes. With this understanding in mind, my delegation has carefully examined the report and wishes at the outset to congratulate the Bureau of Social Affairs and the four specialized agencies concerned for their joint efforts in preparing this monumental report. I used the word monumental, because it is the first time that such a world-wide survey has been made. Furthermore, the report, under each Chapter, has made certain suggestions of ideas and indications of methods which governments might wish to consider for possible application to their own social problems.
The report covers a wide range of social programmes, such as programmes of health, education, labour, housing, as well as special programmes of social protection and rehabilitation, and special programmes of social development for rural areas. While it is not feasible to comment on each of these programmes, I shall limit my remarks to one or two programmes which we consider are of the utmost importance to the economically under-developed countries.
Chapter X of the report deals with special programmes of social development for rural areas. Since most of the under-developed countries are primarily agricultural countries like my own, programmes for rural areas deserve our best attention. From the report, it is gratifying to note that since World War II, increasing efforts have been put to social programmes for rural inhabitants in many parts of the world, and the most noticeable programmes have been in the field of land reform. Programmes of land reform are important, not only because they can eventually affect the general economy of a country, but also because they have immediate effect upon the living conditions of the population. It is in the latter sense that the Council should examine the land reform programmes as reported in this Survey.
On page 418 of the Survey, it is reported that "In China: Mainland, over one half the total cultivated land is reported to have been distributed by the end of 1952. In China: Taiwan, the Land to the Tiller Act of 1953 affects nearly three-fourths of the privately-owned farmlands previously held under lease". The Survey goes on to say, "In land reform providing new opportunities, there are certain basic problems—with important social implications of which policies must be established:
How is land to be redistributed? How is the land to be obtained and the transfer carred out? Who receives it and under what conditions?" These are indeed pertinent questions. Unless these questions are answered, one will never know what are the social implications of a land reform programme. However, if we look at the report, no explanations are given about the so-called land reform programme on the Chinese mainland and some explanations are given by way of illustration about the programme in the Province of Taiwan. Therefore, it is difficult to see from the report how these programmes have effected the living conditions of the Chinese people. The Council will recall that the question of land reform has been discussed under the heading "Economic Development of Under-developed Countries", I shall therefore not speak on the economic aspects of the question, but, on the social aspects of the question, I must point out that there is a basic difference between the programme on the mainland and the programme in the Province of Taiwan. One is by force and fear, the other is by compensation and encouragement.
The Chinese communist regime has carried out its "land reform" by forcible seizure and distribution. Since 1949, thousands of landlords and well-to-do peasants were put to death through mob action instigated by communist political workers. Rural areas all over the country have become valleys of terror and blood- shed. In Taiwan, on the contrary, the Government has since 1949 carried out a three-stage programme of land reform to achieve the triple purpose of (1) reducing rentals on agricultural land, (2) assuring security of tenure to the peasants and (3) providing opportunity for the cultivators to acquire ownership of land. Today the three purposes have all been fulfilled and the level of living of the peasants in Taiwan has become so high that no parallel can be found in Chinese history.
Another point which I would like to stress is in connection with the importance of education programme, particularly of primary education. The importance of education as such hardly needs to be emphasized. There is, however, one point which the report implied but did not emphasize, i.e., the value of school system to the implementation of other social programmes, especially child health programmes. In recent years, one of the characteristics of social welfare activities is to carry out child health programmes through schools. Well-organized system of primary schools and close supervision of school teachers can greatly facilitate mass campaigns 6f health projects. In the province of Taiwan, for instance, UNICEF assisted-projects, such as BCG vaccination and tracoma control, have been carried out most successfully, and the main reason for the success in that 90 % of school-age children are in schools. Therefore, a sound primary school system is of fundamental importance, not only because it constitutes an economic investment, which eventually will pay for itself in higher productivity and effectiveness of future citizens, but also because it immediately serves as a machinery, through which many other kinds of social projects can be carried out more easily, more economically and efficiently.
Before leaving the subject of the International Survey, my delegation wishes to endorse the decision of the Social Commission to request the Secretary-General to transmit the Survey to Member States for their observation. In so doing, government officials and members of the legislature can take full advantage of the finding of the Survey, and, at the same time, their comments and observations will be extremely useful to the future work of the Secretariat as well as to the work of the Council and its Commissions
III.
Finally, Mr. President, my delegation wishes to offer a few brief comments on the Report on International Definition and Measurement of Standards and Levels of Living. As the Council knows, the purpose of this study is to find satisfactory methods of defining and measuring standards of living and changes therein in the various countries, having due regard to the possibility of international comparison. In dealing with the question of measurement the Committee had to consider the problem not only of how to measure but also of what to measure. It had to consider the material factors of life as well as the non-material factors. Because of the complex nature of the problem, no final conclusions have therefore been reached. However, it does not imply that the Committee has failed in carrying out its task. On the contrary, the Committee has not only successfully clarified the nature and scope of the problem, but also convincingly indicated the path along which further progress can be made.
In the opinion of my delegation, the greatest contribution of the Committee seems to be the select on and determination of the "components" and "indicators" of the level of living. The Committee listed twelve components, and, under each of the components, a number of indicators. The twelve components are as follows: Health, Food, Education, Conditions of Work, Employment Situation, Consumption and Savings, Transportation, Housing, Clothing, Recreation, Social Security and Human Freedoms. Mr. President, while my delegation is in general agreement with the balanced listing of these components, I only wish to say a brief word emphasizing the importance of the last mentioned component, namely, Human Freedoms.
It has been stressed both by the Committee of Experts and by the Social Commission that the level of living is an organic unity embracing both material and non-material aspects of existence. And the most important factor of non-material aspects of life is, to our mind, Human Freedoms. If we look at the world today, half of the population are living in constant fear and complete isolation from the outside world. When we remember that there are people who prefer liberty to life if they must choose, we should therefore never overlook, or even under-estimate, human freedom when measuring the level of living in different countries. The Committee; while recognizing human freedoms as an important component, was unable to suggest any indicator, partly because it was difficult to find quantitative expression or statistical measurement for human freedoms, and partly because many kinds of human rights in. eluded in the Universal Declaration have already found recognition in indicators listed under other components. My delegation wishes to point out, however, that the statistical measurements of other components are sometimes equally lacking and inaccurate, and the difference is therefore a matter of degree; and the fundamental human rights and freedoms cannot always find recognition in other indicators. For these reasons, I venture to suggest that Human Freedoms in general should be listed as a priority component of level of living and the basic freedoms, such as freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of employment and movement should be listed as priority indicators.
Aside from this point, my delegation is in general agreement with the conclusions of the Committee concerning the future in this field. We wish particularly to endorse the suggestion that one of the urgent tasks should be the planning and conducting of the "family living surveys" designed to obtain a more direct and comprehensive measurement of actual family living conditions. As indicated by the Committee, even the analysis of all the indicators proposed would not provide an adequate total picture of the level of living. Therefore the findings of the "family living surveys" are urgently needed.
VI.
These, Mr. President, are the few brief remarks I wish to make in connection with the three subjects. In conclusion, I should remind the Council of the excellent statement contained in the Introduction of the International Survey concerning the three common problems of the under-development countries. These are problems of obtaining: (1) adequate personnel to execute the programmes, (2) adequate information to guide the programmes and (3) adequate resources to finance them. While to obtain adequate personnel, information and resources should primarily be the responsibility of governments, to assist governments to solve these problems should be the responsibilities of the United Nations and the specialized agencies. As to how to assist governments along these lines that is the immediate concern of the Council