 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Chiao Kuan-hua's speech at the UN General
Assembly
Opposing Soviet Proposal
13 November 1972
Mr. President,
In our speech at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly on October 3, the Chinese Delegation already exposed in a fundamental way the essence of the Soviet proposal on the so-called non-use of force in international relations and permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. One would expect the Soviet representative to make some presentable reply in defense of this proposal. It is indeed disappointing that in his speech of November 2, the Soviet representative only put forward some feeble rationalizations, which cannot gain any credence whatsoever.
1. The Soviet representative said that the very core of the Soviet proposal is its edge against aggression. On the contrary, the whole reactionary nature of the Soviet proposal lies in its obliteration of the demarcation line between aggression and the victims of aggression and its betrayal of the interests of the world's people fighting against imperialist aggression. The Soviet representative tried very hard to make people believe that the Soviet proposal is fully in keeping with the principles of the U.N. Charter. If this was really the case, then strict observance of the Charter would suffice. Why is it necessary to formulate a separate declaration on what is called the non-use of force? The principles of the Charter are to oppose the use of force for aggression against other states. However, it is this very key point of opposing aggression which is missing in the Soviet draft resolution. Therefore, how can it be said that the Soviet proposal is fully in keeping with the principles of the Charter? At a time when the U.S. Government, the Israeli Zionists, the Portuguese colonialists, the South African white racists as well as imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism of various descriptions are still resorting to the use of force in subjecting the great majority of the countries and peoples of the world to enslavement, aggression, control and intimidation, the preaching of the non-use of force in international relations indiscriminatingly, without regard to conditions and in an absolute way is, in effect, asking the people of various countries to abandon their armed struggle against aggression.
2. The Soviet representative said that the Soviet proposal on the non-use of force in international relations and permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons had advantages over China's proposal which states that, as the first step towards the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, all nuclear countries undertake the obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, particularly against the non-nuclear countries. What the Soviet representative said is sheer sophistry. China's proposal for undertaking the obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons is unconditional, while the Soviet proposal for the so-called permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons is conditional, and the conditions constitute in essence the betrayal of the people's interests. As everyone knows, if all the nuclear countries undertake the obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, then the question of the so-called second or third user of nuclear weapons as indicated by the Soviet representative simply does not exist. His argument is sheer frivolous quibbling. When the Soviet Union even refuses to undertake not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, how can it make people believe that it will permanently renounce the use of such weapons? If the Soviet Union truly stands for the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, why doesn't it propose the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons? Why should the Soviet Union frantically continue to develop its nuclear weapons while at the same time desperately opposing others conducting the necessary nuclear tests for self-defense? The plain truth is that it has recently reached an agreement with the United States on the limitation of strategic arms, so that it is reviving the old Khrushchovite dream of Soviet-US. collaboration for world domination, that is, Soviet-US. collaboration to maintain nuclear monopoly and nuclear superiority and to carry out nuclear blackmail and nuclear threats against the people of the world. Actually this is trying to keep the world under Soviet-US. control in the name of maintaining world peace. To use Khrushchev's words, "If any madman wanted war, we (the Soviet Union and the United States) would but have to shake our fingers to warn him off."
3. The Soviet leaders are acting like overlords and doing whatever they please throughout the world, and yet they have come to the United Nations to play the benevolent goddess of mercy giving earnest admonitions and rescuing the wretched. The Soviet leaders have tried by every possible means to make people believe that they have laid down their butcher's knives and become Buddhist at once. In 1968, the Soviet Union brazenly dispatched hundreds of thousands of troops, hundreds of planes and thousands of tanks to invade and occupy one of its East European allies. Yet in 1969, the Soviet representative came to this rostrum and put forward a proposal on what he called strengthening international peace and security. In 1971, the Soviet Union flagrantly abetted and supported the armed aggression against, and dismemberment of, Pakistan. And now in 1972 the Soviet representative has again come to this hall and put forward a proposal on the so-called non-use of force in international relations and permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. But empty talk about peace, after all, cannot cover up the true features of an expansionist. Dear Mr. Soviet representative, why can't you just withdraw your troops and dismantle your bases from the People's Republic of Mongolia instead of unabashedly uttering empty words about the renunciation of the use of all force? Wouldn't that better prove that you really have the intention for the non-use of force? The stark facts have shown that the Soviet leaders have neither laid down their butcher's knives nor will they become Buddhist.
The Soviet proposal is a downright fraud. The Chinese Delegation firmly opposes it.
This
material is produced independently for NTI by the James Martin
Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of
International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the
opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or
its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by
MIIS.
