I do not regard the question as in any way impolite, but I would point out to the hon. gentleman that there were several sponsors. I imagine he is referring to the fact that very strong support of this motion was put forward by the U.S.S.R., and by certain satellite powers, as well as by other nations.
I continue now with the quotation from this resolution;
Further desiring to secure the participation of all peace-loving peoples, including the people of Spain, in the community of nations;
Recommends that if, within a reasonable time, there is not established a government which derives its authority from the consent of the governed, committed to respect freedom of speech, religion and assembly and to the prompt holding of an election in which the Spanish people, free from force and intimidation and regardless of party, may express their will, the security council consider the adequate measures to be taken in order to remedy the situation;
Recommends that all members of the United Nations immediately recall from Madrid their ambassadors and all ministers plenipotentiary accredited there.
The general assembly further recommends that the states members of the organization report to the secretary general and to the next session of the assembly, what action they have taken in accordance with this recommendation.
That is a resolution on the records of the United Nations Organization. Without discussing the merits or otherwise of that resolution at the moment, the fact remains that by a majority vote sufficiently large to commend the observance of the members of the United Nations Organization, a decision was made that there would not be recognition of that government until it was a government with
Supply-External Affairs the consent of the governed. This becomes a most emphatic statement of international law, and remains so until it has been repealed. Certainly, it cannot be disregarded. It would be a shameful thing if it were disregarded in consideration of this problem which is being discussed at the moment. Whatever may be said about the government of Spain, it certainly is not open to anyone to suggest that the Mao regime in China was not imposed upon the Chinese people by force, and by forces supplied by the government of Russia. On the basis of existing international law, that is a consideration which cannot be disregarded if our observance of that resolution is to be looked upon as a responsible act by the government of this country.
What is the necessity for haste in dealing with this question of recognition? What is the evidence before us that these conditions have been met, even if it were possible to overcome the hurdle presented by that resolution of December 12, 1946? There is another important consideration which should be borne in mind also. It is not necessary, nor is there any occasion, to express an opinion about the government of Chiang Kai-shek at this moment. There was a time, of course, when the people of Canada did express admiration for the fortitude of the leader of the Chinese forces who, for so many long years, fought the Japanese invader. This was at a time when the league of nations was standing by, and taking no action to carry out the obligations under its covenant. That admiration may have been misplaced, but it was demonstrated over and over again by Canadians in every part of this country.
Today Chiang Kai-shek exercises authority over a limited area. It would appear that he exercises direct authority only over the islands of Formosa and Hainan, but there are many millions of people living on those islands. Those islands are still the bastions against the complete communist domination of the whole eastern coast of China. I am not raising any question about Formosa beyond this, that one of the obligations undertaken by the United States was to return the island of Formosa to the republic of China after the war. Any hasty recognition of the Mao regime as the government of China, which carries forward all diplomatic obligations and rights, would carry with it the duty of handing over to Mao the island of Formosa. That is something which will require careful consideration on the part of the government of the United States, and undoubtedly it is receiving careful consideration. Factors such as these and factors such as the present activities of the communist forces of China on its southwestern
462 HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs boundary call for a careful analysis and should put a damper on the enthusiasm of those who are anxious for precipitate recognition of the communist regime in China today. We are under no compulsion to act hastily, but I believe we are under great compulsion as a nation to act with caution, with great care and after a full examination of all the consequences that would flow from recognition at this time.
This is not only a question of the formality of recognition; this is not only a question as to what recognition means to us. It is a question of what recognition means to the Chinese, to the Russians, and to those countries in southeast Asia which are still doing all they can to hold the vile flood of communism from their countries. The events which have taken place to the south of China should be in the minds of every member of this house and of every Canadian who is concerned about the future of that vast area, which may determine the whole future course of the world. At the present time there is fighting in the recently-recognized state of Viet Nam. There are two groups of recognition in Viet Nam and in two of the adjoining countries. Those conflicting recognitions throw some light on the importance of recognition to the people in those areas and of what recognition means in the minds of the men in the Kremlin. There is the legitimate government of Viet Nam. It has been recognized by Britain, the United States, France and other countries associated with them in their efforts to preserve peace. There are also the Viet Minh forces; they have been recognized by Russia, and they are fighting the Viet Nam government within the boundaries of China and are receiving arms from Mao. Every time they are cornered on the Chinese boundary, they retreat into China, reorganize, re-arm and go back again into Viet Nam. In that area recognition of China would be regarded almost as a fatal blow to the government of Viet Nam which we have recognized. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) may nod his head; but it is a pity that he did not give us some of this information verbally instead of reserving it for this vague interpretation.
And I may say that is the view publicly expressed by men with a great deal longer experience than the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this government. That is an area which indicates what may happen, because beyond Viet Nam lie Malaya, Burma, and farther away the great nation of India. When anyone expresses some measure of confidence that Mao has no territorial ambitions
in that area, one is sadly reminded of the assurance that Hitler gave to Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Daladier in September of 1938, when he assured them that Germany had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. The territorial ambitions of the Soviet empire, of which Mao's regime now forms a part, are not limited except by recognition of the fact that there may be some point beyond which they dare not go. The question that is presented to those who hope to preserve freedom today is a question that was presented to the people of Europe and of the world in 1938 and the early part of 1939. The question now is the same as the question then, namely: How far do we let aggression go without anything but expressions of regret? Let no one suggest that the raising of that question now indicates any thought that we should take precipitate action of any kind. But every one of us learned from the records of the German general staff and of the German government, which were exposed to the world at Nuremberg, that if a firm position had been taken against the Germans in 1938 and 1939 the likelihood was that there would have been no war at all, certainly not at that time. The evidence is all too clear that twice within a generation the world has been bathed in blood because the free nations did not stand together firmly enough at the time when firmness would have retarded aggression and preserved the freedom and peace of the world.
Let us see what it was that was under consideration in the remarks of General McNaughton when he made it quite clear that early recognition is under consideration or has actually been decided upon. A typical example of the things that have been read these past few weeks is to be found in the New York Times of January 24, under the heading: "Soviet walks out of the UN fifteenth time on China issue." Then it goes on to explain under date of January 23:
Valentin I. Kobushko of the Soviet union walked out of the economic and social council's committee of non-governmental organizations today, after failing to oust the representative of nationalist China. The latest effort, with the now familiar routine of the Russian point of order, the Chinese retort, the vote and finally the walkout declaration, was an almost mechanical affair lasting a little over four minutes. When Mr. Kobushko turned his back on the closed meeting he brought to fifteen the total of recent Soviet bloc walkouts from six United Nations bodies.
From their point of view there may be every reason for the representatives of the Soviet government and their satellites to urge that the present Chinese representative at the United Nations should no longer be permitted to sit there; but there are other methods to use than to walk out on the conference.
On matters of major international concern the United Nations Organization has been rendered almost helpless by the veto of Russia; and now it is being rendered impotent in regard to some of those activities by the walkout, simply because these various groups within the United Nations Organization are not prepared to submit without argument to the demands of this vile tyranny to which we certainly should not bow down now or at any other time.
The situation is perfectly clear. The Soviets have never been able to muster more than three votes in the security 'council, and only two in the other bodies, in favour of their demand that the present Chinese representative be removed. As I said before, no one can possibly challenge their right to argue, and to submit every contention that they think is in their interests, to bring this about; but the United Nations cannot permit one member to dictate to it, or the United Nations will no longer have either dignity, self-respect or any real power to solve the problems of the world.
It has also permitted Russia far too much latitude in preventing effective action, and the time has come, in the interests of peace and the preservation of freedom, to remember that word "appeasement" that was written across the world in letters of blood only a few years ago.
Fortunately there are breaks from time to time in the solid front of the communist representation. They are the sort of breaks that support the statement made here earlier that there is hope. As a result of these walkouts Dr. Alexander Rudzinski, the Polish representative, announced to the secretary general of the assembly that he was no longer a representative of Poland, and that he was going to seek sanctuary in the United States. He gave as his reason the fact that he had received evidence that was all too clear that there was no longer any pretence of freedom in Poland; but that the final and conclusive evidence that they were not a government in their own right was furnished by the fact that the Soviet representatives had put pressure on him direct from the Kremlin, insisting that he, as a Polish representative, should walk out of the United Nations meeting. If, as General McNaughton says, that difficulty is to be removed, and if it is to be removed by recognition of Mao, then the United Nations, and the members of the United Nations, will have submitted to a form of blackmail that will completely stultify the effectiveness of the United Nations Organization in the years ahead. I have a tendency to use the term "the league of nations"; for as one sees these events taking place there
Supply-External Affairs is a chilling recollection of earlier events of the same kind. It is like the experience you have when you pick up one of these paper-covered books just before you take a trip on the train or in an aeroplane-and I am not referring to the type of books that were recently banned-and then you read a couple of chapters before you find that you have already read the same story some time before.
As we read of those events in China and in Viet Nam, and as we consider what may happen in Malaya, in Burma and ultimately in India, if this red flood is not held back by firm and positive action which will be understood by the men in the Kremlin, then we may well find ourselves confronted by very similar events.
When I say "firm action" I mean the kind of united action to preserve peace which the Russians will recognize today just as the Germans would have recognized it either in 1914 or in 1939. It is necessary to go back over the tragic events of the years that have passed. To those whose memories are very clear oh what took place from 1918 onwards, there is a duty to keep fresh in the minds of the people of Canada, and of free people everywhere, those lessons which are of such vital concern to everyone in the world today who hopes to fulfil the terms of victory that came to us in 1945. The allies in November 11, 1918, had won the most decisive victory in all history. There was complete and unqualified submission of the most powerful land army the world had ever known. Most of us here will recall the jubilation on that day, and most of us will recall the confidence with which we looked to the treaty that was to be signed at Versailles. Most of us will remember that there was a belief in those days, a firm belief, that Armageddon had passed, and that never again would the nations of the world be engulfed in so dreadful a holocaust.
Those men who met in the Hall of Mirrors, just next unfortunately to the Hall of War, drafted a covenant which expressed in clear and understandable terms the hopes and aspirations of men and women throughout the world who never again wanted to see a repetition of a tragedy of that kind. And although the covenant was a long document, its terms were simple and fairly explicit. It left a clear understanding that every nation was to have the right of self-government and of self-determination, and that each country could choose its own kind of government without intervention by any other nation.
There was also a clear understanding- and I use the word "understanding"
that the nations would stand together to preserve peace. And it was only on that understanding that France gave up control of the
464 HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs eastern bridgeheads on the Rhine. They never would have made it possible for the Germans to move west again, in that generation, if they had not believed the covenant of the league of nations meant that the nations would stand together to stop aggression.
Time went on, and we all learned that the nations which had signed the covenant were not prepared to place that interpretation upon its terms. There were minor events which were disturbing; but the first great breach of the terms of the covenant of the league was the Japanese invasion of the Chinese mainland in Manchuria.
The league of nations took no steps to deal with that aggression. They applied no sanctions to prevent aggression. On the contrary, the free nations supplied to Japan scrap iron, oil, nickel, aluminum, and other things that could build their strength for those very military activities which were prohibited by the covenant of the league.
Then next came the German occupation of the Rhineland, explicitly prohibited by the treaty. No action was taken. It was accepted as an accomplished fact, just as other things have been accepted as accomplished facts in these past few years.
Then came the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. That could have been stopped at any moment without a shot being fired. Italy was sending troops three thousand miles to distant Ethiopia-and Italy had no oil, except the oil that was supplied by those nations which expressed their disapproval of what Italy was doing. Sanctions to prohibit the export of oil at that time would have prevented the Italian occupation of Ethiopia. That was not done.
And so, step by step we moved forward to the inevitable brink of the inevitable war. I hope that every Canadian, and others who remember the same events, and have the same reason to remember those events, will recall how wise we all thought we were in 1939 and 1940 when, no matter what views had been expressed before, people in the free nations said that never again would there be appeasement of an aggressor. They said, and with conviction, that they had learned the dreadful lesson that appeasement brings war, and that the way to stop war and preserve peace is for the nations that want peace to stand together and say that their freedom is a priceless possession which they will under no circumstances forfeit to an aggressor power.
That was the outstanding lesson we were all supposed to have learned in those dreadful years. The nations met in San Francisco in the spring of 1945 when it became apparent that there was no longer going to be a very extended resistance by Germany, and that
the post-war world should be considered. And at San Francisco those nations which came together as the United Nations again asserted, at the very outset, the right of every nation to choose its own government, and the right of every nation to be free from armed pressure or armed intervention. Also it asserted the principle of consent of the governed.
How far have we followed those principles in the years that have passed?, Surely it must have brought a dreadful realization of what has happened when the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) pointed out this afternoon that five years ago one out of every twelve people in the world was under communist domination, whereas today one out of every three human beings is under communist tyranny.
There is not one of us in this house who does not know that the communist control of Poland, of Roumania, of Hungary, of Bulgaria, of Czechoslovakia, of Latvia, of Lithuania, of Estonia and of all the other states on their borders was in no single instance the free choice of the people of those nations. Today the Soviet empire embraces nearly a third of the population of the world and that vast tyranny has been imposed upon those people by small minorities who were able to exercise their control in every case by force.
There comes a time when the lessons of the past must be remembered and accepted or we shall follow the same dreadful course to another war when all the terrible advances of science will bring destruction on a scale that we have never dreamed of before. But there is hope, and that hope rests upon the unity of purpose of those who are joined in a common bond for peace and for the preservation of freedom.
The proposal has been put forward in this house on different occasions by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that a Pacific pact to complement the Atlantic pact should be brought into being. Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that that could not be done because if the nations of the Pacific were to be invited to consider a Pacific pact it would be necessary to invite Russia and China. Russia was not invited to the meetings of the Atlantic conference and yet Russia has very direct access to the Atlantic through the Baltic or through the fact that at any time she can complete the 35 miles that separates her from the great German seaport of Hamburg.
Not a very pleasant thought, but it is a bit of reality which indicates the direct concern Russia has in the affairs of the Atlantic. Russia was not invited, and for one clear reason. The Atlantic pact was a pact conceived, shaped and brought into being for the
one purpose of containing Russian aggression. Why pretend that it was for anything else? There is no use in pretending today that a Pacific pact would be for any other purpose than to contain the aggression of the Soviet empire in the Pacific area and the Orient.
Here is one of the terrible unrealities of this situation. Every voice which can be raised should be raised before it is too late to say to these people who are talking the mumbo-jumbo of diplomacy: "Wake up
before our freedom is gone and the world destroys itself because you are not talking in terms that the world can understand." Why gloss over these realities in vague terms such as we have heard here today? Why not face the chilling truth? It is only by facing it that we shall avoid the dreadful possibility which the Atlantic pact was conceived and developed to prevent.
What earthly use will the Atlantic pact be if through that pact we prevent war in Europe and then the whole structure of the Orient goes to pieces under the red flood? What use will the Atlantic pact be if we keep the front of human civilization intact and let the whole vast rear of that structure be destroyed by the red flames? What use will the Atlantic pact be if that soviet power which has moved so fast down through China keeps on through Viet Nam, into Malaya, through Burma to India and spreads out to Tibet, to Afghanistan, to Persia and then presents one great solid front to the powers of the west?
That is a dreadful possibility that will be brought closer if the United Nations submit to this soviet blackmail and act under the demands of these people who have defied every ordinary principle of decent conduct when they say: "You do our bidding or we won't even talk to you." No peace will be obtained by a submission to demands of that kind any more than peace was obtained in 1939 by the acceptance of the conditions imposed during the frequent visits to Berchtesgaden.
Every word I have spoken is a word that expresses the hope of peace. Every word I have spoken is a word that is intended to remind hon. members of this house of the ghostly lessons of the past. Every word I have spoken is a word to urge upon this government the duty to say in no uncertain terms, no matter what may be said by other governments in the world: "Appeasement is going to go no further; we have learned the lessons of the past and there will be no truck or trade with tyranny of this kind unless and until they are at least prepared to accept the ordinary standards of international conduct." You do not gain anything, you do not gain any
Supply-External Affairs hope of peace, you do not gain any hope of security by clearing the decks for further discussions under threats of that nature.
One of the problems before us, and a very real problem it is, has been raised by the recognition of the Mao regime by the government of the United Kingdom. I submit that is no reason whatever why this government should recognize the communist regime in China. This government has it within its power to say things that need to be said. I should like to read from an article written recently by Mr. Anthony Eden which I think offers the solution to this great problem. The article was published in London on January 16 and reads:
The Far Eastern policies of the Atlantic powers and their friends are in a rather dismal tangle. They all apparently intend the same thing but they are moving at so different a pace that they are jerkily out of step.
Recognition of the communist government in China provides a recent example of this inconsistency, though not the most important. The divergence of view and discrepancy of action between the British and American governments in this instance may even do good if they draw attention in both countries to the urgent need to co-ordinate policies without further delay.
As regards actual recognition, there is a fair field for argument on practical as well as on legal grounds. It is a real misfortune that in this, as in other Far Eastern matters, we should be acting piecemeal both within the commonwealth and as between the commonwealth and the United States.
I pass on to another quotation in the same article which reads:
We must first determine the nature of our problem in southeast Asia and next consider how together we can make headway toward its solution. In the first instance, the problem is economic. We should make a fatal error were we to under-estimate the extent of the challenge free nations have to meet. The overwhelming triumph of Mao Tze-tung in China has transformed the whole position in the Far East. His methods have now become the blueprint for communist plans and the pattern for communist action throughout the Orient.
Then I should like to quote from the last part of his article:
There should be an agreed strategy in all this area between the powers principally concerned, and their burden both in troops and political responsibility fairly adjusted. It is equally necessary that our several intelligence services in the Far East should be reviewed and co-ordinated.
I therefore repeat that the most urgent need is for us to have a common policy in these affairs. No nation can, by itself, save the Far East. Our common policy must be founded upon determination to help the peoples of southeast Asia to live in freedom from want or fear. Without our aid they are doomed to all the consequences of communist rule, and if they should fall who can doubt that the danger to the peace of all the world would move nearer and yet nearer to home?
Those are the words of the great British foreign secretary of the war years, a man who had the courage to resign from the Chamberlain government in protest against
Supply-External Affairs appeasement before the war, a man who is now raising his voice to assert the same principles, a man who is raising his voice urging common action by the free nations to preserve their principles, which are the reason for the meetings of the United Nations at Lake Success.
Let us hope that conditions will exist at some future time when recognition can be extended to China and to other nations in that great area. But the highest duty of every government today, which has some responsibility in the Pacific as well as in the Atlantic, is to demand that there shall be common action, and that there shall be a clear and uniform pattern of strategy which will be known to the people of the free nations, and which will be known in the clearest detail to the nations which threaten our peace and security. Certainly there should be no recognition of the Mao regime until those conditions have been fulfilled, until the nations which have a common concern in the preservation of peace both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific are able to decide on a uniform pattern of strategy which all can follow.
After two months in Moscow Mao has returned to his own capital, and I notice that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that it is not possible yet to determine what the terms of his agreement with the Russians are. Nevertheless we know it is an agreement of friendship, an agreement for common action. That much we have been told. I hope that every member of the house saw the photograph of the signing of that treaty in the Kremlin. If you have not, look it up. In that photograph you will see the same three Russians who were present when the treaty of friendship was signed with Germany on August 26, 1939, and war became a certainty. There were Stalin, Molotov and Yishinsky. Mao was sitting in the very place where Ribbentrop sat at that time. They were all in precisely
the same positions. Look at the picture and then think what that pact of friendship may mean to the free world unless the lessons of the past are remembered and the nations stand together to preserve that peace for which so many of our own young men and women died, and so many of the youth of the world gave up all they had.
Let no one suggest that we must wait for others. In this confused and uncertain hour the whole free world is waiting for a clear and clarion call to follow the course of honour, to follow the course that will give us peace. That call can come from Canada, which under no circumstances can be charged with any selfish interest in Asia, Europe or anywhere else in the world. I submit, Mr. Chairman, this is both a challenge and an opportunity which never may be offered to this government again.
I most certainly do. I do believe that every word I have said is an appeal to follow the only course that will give us peace. I have made this appeal tonight to the Canadian government, to the members of this parliament, and to the people of Canada to wake up, because I see a very grave danger that we are following the same course that led to such dreadful results only a few years ago.