Taiwan Today

During the five years that I have repre­sented my country in the United Nations. I have seen much happen both inside and outside of the United Nations. The principal trend in all these crowded events is the struggle between freedom and communism. As President Eisenhower put it in his inaugural speech. "Freedom is pitted against slavery; lightness against the dark." I was enormously heartened to hear the new President of this country declare. "We are called as a people to give testimony in the sight of the world, to our faith that the future shall belong to the free." It seems to me that now is the time for all who wish to be free to put their shoulders to the wheel.

Today I wish to present a Chinese view of this world struggle and I wish to begin, as you usually begin with NATO. I watched with admiration the launching and the execu­tion of the Marshall Plan. I have watched with equal admiration the organization and development of NATO. While many of the supporters of NATO in this country and in Western Europe have stoutly asserted "Europe first", we Chinese have never uttered a single word, in public or in private, against the concept or the principles of NATO. We recognize the importance of Western Europe in the struggle against communism. We do not think that you have spent one cent too much in Western Europe although we know that you have borne great burdens in the accomplishment of the Marshall Plan and the organization of NATO. We believe, however, that the philosophy of "Europe first" is dangerous. We are further alarmed by the fact that some of those who believe in "Europe first" really believe in "Europe first, second, and last". I am not going to debate this point because I believe this debate to have been closed with the inaugural speech of President Eisenhower. We all have fresh in our minds the nine prin­ciples which the President proclaimed. Principle 8 states: "Conceiving the defense of freedom, like freedom itself, to be one and indivisible, we hold all continents and peoples in equal regard and honor. We reject any insinuation that one race or another, one people or another, is in any sense inferior or expendable." We fully subscribe to this principle.

What I wish to say today is related to what I consider to be the short-comings of NATO as NATO has developed.

Not all the problems of NATO have been solved, either in the political or in the military field. The relations among members of NATO have not all been adjusted and coordinated to achieve the principal objective of NATO. However, you know as much as I do about the inner relations of NATO. This is not what I wish to talk about. I wish to call your atten­tion to the relations between NATO on one hand and on the other that part of the free world which is not inside NATO.

In the first place, the relations between NATO countries and the Near Eastern coun­tries have been and remain a cause for worry. From Iran in the east to Morocco in the west, not all is going well. It is strange that Great Britain and France, experienced in diplomacy and colonial administration, with vital interests in the Near East and North Africa, should have allowed the situation to develop to the present critical stage. The peoples of the Near East and North Africa are basically with us in this world struggle. They wish to be on the side of freedom. Their aspirations are on the whole in the right direction and should be satisfied. European states manship has faced problems of a similar kind in other parts of the world and has faced them successfully. It is tragic that at this critical moment the situation in the Near East and North Africa should continue to deteriorate.

Personally I wish Great Britain and France well. I think I understand and appreciate the great contributions which these two countries can and must make to the cause of world freedom. I must say, however, that I have been disap­pointed with British and French statesmanship in the Near East and North Africa. Great Britain and France claim that they know the problems of these regions better than anybody else. They certainly should know better because of their long experience in and association with the countries in these regions. However, when we apply the test of performance, I am afraid we cannot say that Great Britain and France have down well. The time has come when, friends of Great Britain and France should make their views known and not continue to follow the British and French leadership blindly.

Politically and militarily the Near East and North Africa are of great importance to the free world. Even if NATO should think that freedom in Western Europe is all that matters, the loss of the Near East and North Africa would be fatal to Western Europe. I think we do not need to go that far. Loss of the Near East and North Africa would of course be fatal. Continuous trouble in the Near East and North Africa might prove too serious a burden on the moral and material resources of Western Europe.

I have participated, in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, in debates on the Iran oil, on Palestine, on the Suez Canal, and more recently on Tunisia and Morocco. My basic friendship for Western Europe has been publicly and privately acknowledged by West European representatives. Furthermore, I cannot be accused of being a demagogue or of being an extreme nationalist. My voice in the United Nations on these questions has always been the voice of moderation. Today in calling your attention to the problems of the Near East and North Africa, I am doing this not as an enemy of France and Great Britain but as their friend, and I assume that you too are the friends of France and Great Britain. In a word, the problems of the Near East and North Africa must be solved and solved quickly. Delay would make the situation worse. Time is against us. World communism can use time to do us all a great deal of harm in the Near East and North Africa.

Now I wish to examine the relations of NATO to the Far East. Mr. Dulles, your Secretary of State, has warned the world time and again, that world communism since the days of Lenin has planned to take Western Europe by a flanking movement through Asia. This farsighted view of Mr. Dulles, so far as I have observed, is unfortunately not shared by all West European statesmen.

In all my life the darkest moment was the Spring of 1950, when Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, one after another, accorded diplomatic recognition to the Chinese communist puppet regime in Peiping. We were then as we are now struggling against communism in China. We hoped and we still hope to recover national independence for our country and personal freedom for the 450 million Chinese. At such a moment, these countries of Western Europe, nurtured in the tradition of freedom, forming a mighty alliance to fight against communism, deliberately went out of their way to give that moral and political prestige to the Chinese communists which diplomatic recognition must confer. I felt in 1950 that these countries of Western Europe gave the Chinese people a push in the back when the Chinese people faced the abyss in front.

In 1950, when these members of NATO recognized the Chinese communists, there prevailed in Europe and even here certain political illusions. One was to the effect that the Chinese communists were not communists at all but "mere agrarian reformers". Another was to the effect that the Chinese communists would surely and quickly turn Titoist. It is to be hoped that these illusions have been destroyed by this time. There is no reason today why members of NATO should not de­recognize the Chinese communists.

We in China know that the countries of Western Europe are hard-pressed. They are not in a position to give material aid to us Chinese. We do not expect their material aid. We have thought and still think that the least the members of NATO can do and should do is not to increase the difficulties of the Chinese people in their fight for national and personal freedom. Is that expecting too much? If a country fights for freedom in one region and sanctions the establishment of communism in another region, the world has good reason to suspect the sincerity and good faith of such a country.

Western Europe is afraid that the United States might be involved in a continental campaign in Asia. Mr. Winston Churchill in his recent visit to this country told the American people as soon as he arrived that he did not like to see "the army of the United Nations or of the United States wandering about in the vast country of China". We Chinese have never tried to secure the commitment of American manpower in our country. We know that we Chinese must shed the blood to win our national and individual freedom. So far as I know, not a single American, Republican or Democrat, has advocated that the United States should commit, her manpower to a long campaign on the mainland of China. The advice of Mr. Churchill was gratuitous and pointless.

Individual American friends of China have suggested various lines of action. Some have advocated that the Chinese Army should be used in Korea. We made an offer of three divisions for the Korean War. That offer was made in August 1950. It was refused. We understood the grounds for the refusal. We have shown no resentment against the refusal. Neither have we renewed our offer. As a loyal member of the United Nations we would even now make a military contribution to the Korean War if we were asked to do it. However, we ourselves are not convinced that Korea is the best place for the free Chinese to make a contribution to the cause of world freedom. While we keep our minds open on this point, it is wrong for anybody to assume that the Chinese Army can be counted as just expendable material to be used by others wherever they see fit.

Other individual Americans have advocated a naval blockade of the mainland of China. To us, that suggestion appears to be good commonsense.

I myself have a new suggestion to make. I believe that what will really meet the situa­tion in the Far East is Free China's capacity for undertaking an independent offensive against the puppet communist regime on the mainland of China. My plan is not that American air and naval power should be used to help Free China's infantry to invade the mainland. My plan is that Free China should acquire enough naval and air, power in addition to its present land power so that Free China can independently invade and liberate the mainland.

The power of an independent offensive meets the situation better than any other plan. However you might view my suggestion now, I am convinced that the diplomatic and strategic exigencies of the developing situation will re­quire Free China to have the power of an independent offensive.

China's position in the Far East is comparable to the position of Germany in Europe. Concede Germany to communism and you will have lost Europe. Accept the communist regime in China as an accomplished fact and you concede inevitably the whole of the Far East, no matter how much you might try to do in Korea, Indo-China and Malaya. Without the recovery of mainland China, containment of communism in Asia is impossible.

We believe that an independent offensive on the part of my Government will be welcomed by our fellow countrymen on the mainland. Such an offensive is not in the nature of the conquest of mainland China by the island of Formosa. It is in the nature of eight million Chinese on Formosa going to the mainland to help the 450 million Chinese there to overthrow the communist yoke which they themselves wish to overthrow. When the free Chinese launch such an enterprise, all members of NATO should give it their moral support and, in so far as is possible, their material support.

*Speech delivered before the New York Young Republican Club on 28 January 1953.