Text of the Speech made by Mr. Tsiang (China) in the Security Council Meeting No. 471 held on 12 April, 1950
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Tsiang (China) in the Security Council Meeting No. 471 held on 12 April, 1950
I appreciate and praise the noble motives which motivated the President to make the statement which he did at the beginning of today's meeting. It is obvious that the peoples It is of the world look to the United Nations and, in particular, to the Security Council, to keep the peace of the world. It is also obvious that problems have increased faster than we have been able to find solutions for them. The President's concern is therefore very legitimate. I wish to take a few minutes of the Council's time to set forth the views of my delegation in regard to the problem which the President took up in his opening statement.
In the first part of the President's statement he stressed. the problem of disarmament and the organisation of a United Nations force. Although he did not specifically mention the problem of atomic energy. I am sure he had it in his mind, as indeed all of us must have it always in our minds. My delegation regrets and laments that we have not succeeded in prohibiting and controlling the atomic weapon. We regret that the matter of the limitation of conventional armaments has not made much progress. We also regret that the organisation of an international force is as far off today as it was when the United Nations was first started. This state of affairs is undoubtedly a disappointment to all of us here and to all the peoples of the world. Indeed, we can say that such a state of affairs has come about against the deep wishes of all the peoples of the world. Nevertheless, it is a fact, and we can ponder over the reasons for the present situation.
The world, in spite of its shortcomings, has progressed. beyond the stage of cannibalism or war for the sake of just killing people. War for the sake of war is definitely a museum piece. If, then, we still see on all sides preparations for war it is because we are divided on policy. It is my sincere conviction that the cause of disarmament can be served only by seeking a settlement in the political sphere. Any effort to work on the problem of disarmament, including the control and prohibition of atomic energy, would not bear fruit unless we succeed in the first instance in achieving a substantial measure of political agreement.
Turning now to the political field, it appears to me that it is well for the Security Council to keep in mind its limitations. To realise our limitations is not to abdicate or to remain passive in the face of the world crisis. If we realised our limitations we could then more profitably build up our strength and apply that strength along lines that would be really useful.
One of the great political problems facing the world today is the problem of peace treaties with Germany, Japan and Austria. Now, it was decided by the Powers that the question of peace treaties should be placed beyond the sphere of activities of the United Nations. No matter what we here might think today, this problem is not within our jurisdiction. I can see nothing that the Security Council can do usefully in this field.
The second great limitation which we must face is the rise of Soviet Union imperialism. This rise is unexpected. In the years before the organisation of the United Nations. and during the Conference at San Francisco, all the Governments and peoples of the world expected the Soviet Union to cooperate with the other countries of the world on the basis of live and let live. Actual events have gone against our expectations. We face today a new kind of imperialism more deadly than anything we have ever seen before in all of mankind's history. It works with weapons against which the Charter made no specific provision just because the framers of the Charter did not visualise such a possibility. It is only when aggression assumes the classical form of armed invasion that the specific Articles of the Charter can be brought into action. Aggression through propaganda, through the "fifth column", through exploitation of economic backwardness in some countries, waging a war of aggression in the form of a civil war all these and other devices were not foreseen and safe guarded against by the framers of the Charter. This limitation of the United Nations is one of the fundamental causes of its weakness today. It is also the fundamental cause of the world's worries.
What, then, can the United Nations contribute towards the maintenance of peace? It has no force of its own. It has no financial resources of its own. Some of the important problems of the world are not within its scope of activities. Our Charter was designed more to meet the problems of the past than to meet the one problem of today.
In the face of all these limitations and difficulties there is -one sphere where we can be useful and strong. That is the sphere of world public opinion. It is by the mobilisation of the moral forces of the world that the United Nations today. can make a real contribution. I am firmly convinced that if we should be courageous enough to deploy all the moral forces. of the world, we could yet maintain the peace of the world.
During the fourth session of the General Assembly, my delegation asked the United Nations to consider the aggression of the Soviet Union against my country. The General Assembly contented itself with a resolution of abstract and remote principles. Even today, when the question is before the Interim Committee, some delegations are only too prone to be passive, to say that what is past is past. I cannot conceive of any way of raising the prestige of the United Nations if we continue to hush matters. Proposals have been made to patch up things. Such proposals are calculated to preserve the United Nations as a piece of bureaucratic machinery. I am not interested in the United Nations as a piece of bureaucratic machinery; I am interested in the United Nations as a force for international justice and peace. As soon as it ceases to be such a force, a mere gigantic bureaucracy will serve purpose whatever. no