Denouncing the Communist-engineered "conference" in Cairo as not "Asian-African" in the true sense, the New York Times on December 28 observed that the parley was designed to delude and to inflame; its manifestations were cheap slapstick; and its underlying meaning was ominous.
In another editorial on December 30, the Times said: "It is the world's most important colonial power that pretends to lead the fight against colonialism in Cairo. It is the continued oppressor of many Asian peoples that dares in Cairo to attack the West which has long since given up the bulk of its colonial empire in Asia and has already begun the process of creating independent, self-governing states in Africa."
The Times then pointed out that the only remaining white, Western colonial power in Asia is Russia. "From the Urals to the Pacific," it said, "the Moscovite Russians rule territory stolen from Asian peoples and oppress Asian peoples. It was less than 100 years ago, for example, that the Amur River Valley was taken from China. The Asian peoples oppressed by Russian rule within the boundaries of the Soviet Union itself are also many: Uzbeks, Kirgiz, Tadjiks, Buryat-Mongols, Kazakhs, Azerbaidzhanis, Yakuts, and others."
The New York Herald Tribune on December 28 said: "The only purpose that the Cairo conference can serve is that of a sounding board for propaganda. It is being used by nearly all the participants, but especially by Egypt and the Soviet Union. President Nasser of Egypt is advocating his old plan of an economic union of the countries of Asia and Africa; the Soviet Union is broadcasting promises of economic aid to all the under-developed countries... The propaganda of Nasser and Khrushchev (as relayed by their emissaries) goes out to the world as the expression of thirty-seven nations and would-be nations. This impression is as false as the propaganda itself."
The paper then urged the West to take the initiative in the Afro-Asian world with policies of vigor and foresight that would render the words scattered so lavishly at Cairo fruitless. "The Soviet Union is pressing hard in this vast, fluid area where a whole new world is coming into being. The United States and its allies cannot allow that new world to be shaped by the lying promises of Communism."
In another editorial entitled "The Soviet Union Promises," the Herald Tribune further said on December 29: "The grandiose Soviet promise from Cairo of unlimited help to the under-developed countries of Asia and Africa must be taken very seriously. It represents the most direct and dangerous challenge yet made to the United States for the allegiance of hundreds of millions of people, people whom we have complacently assumed to be permanently attached to Western ideals. It does not, matter so much that the promise was made at a Communist organized conference which some Asian and African governments refuse to recognize. Nor does it matter that, in view of past Soviet economic and technical help to Africa, the promise may be unreliable. What does matter are the terms of the promise itself."
Pointing out that the West would be gravely mistaken just to write off the Cairo conference as nothing but a Communist propaganda stunt, the Washington Post & Times-Herald on December 27 said: "The difficult task of this country (the United States) and its European allies (for whom the difficulties are in some cases more particular and formidable) is to distinguish and deal understandingly with Asian-African aspirations even when they are expressed in a Moscow-manufactured format. Counterpropaganda against Russia and Communism will not suffice. Rather there should become concrete measures which will identify the West with their aspirations. This means an unrelenting search for the way to an arms-control agreement, a minimum of nuclear and missile testing and breast-beating, an imaginative no-strings program of economic development assistance, the early extraction of needless thorns like Algeria and Cyprus and a pressing forward in this country against the remaining barriers to racial amity."
The Christian Science Monitor on December 28 said: "This meeting, advertised as a successor to the Bandung Conference of 1955, does not represent governments, but is being used by Communists to exploit Soviet-bloc penetration of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. That penetration thus far consists more of politics and promises than of performance. The value is yet to be proved in the invitation of a Soviet spokesman to 'tell us what you need and we will help you.'"
"The roles undergo alternation, as often occurs in applying a fable. If the Asian-African peoples want to protect their future from Communist domination, they must pay a price not to Moscow but through economic self-reliance and political responsibility in developing their respective countries."
In conclusion, the paper said: "Fortunately, the delegations and crowds making noise in Cairo do not represent, as they claim to do, the great masses of population in their countries. Nor do they represent such non-Communist countries as South Korea, Republic of China, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Philippines. But they do constitute a challenge which must be met by the Western world and by hard-thinking Asians and Africans themselves."
The Philadelphia Inquirer on December 30 stated: "Since no effective countermeasure has been taken by the West against the propaganda coming out of Cairo, it will be well not to underestimate the effects of that propaganda. Implicit in it is a call to the African and Asian peoples to turn against the West, to throw out Western influences - Indonesia was cited as a fine example - so that, by sheer default, these under-privileged countries would land in the Communist lap since they then would have no other place to go."
The Salt Lake Tribune on December 26 said: "The Cairo conference re-emphasizes again the snowballing movement toward nationalism and a growing hatred toward 'colonialism' throughout Africa and Asia. It should remind the Western world that one child in three born in this area today is non-white and that two billion people exist who are neither Russian nor American, and many of them are skeptical of both Moscow and Washington. Many are more zealous than wise, more resolved to win self-government than prepared for it. And many, many thousands have never known what it is to be free from hunger.
"The final word will not be uttered at Cairo any more than it was at Bandung. Fortunately for the West, perhaps, rivalry for leadership persists. Already Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah of the new African state of Ghana, who is pro-Western in his views, has challenged Nasser for leadership among the uncommitted nations. We may hope that others will defend our good intentions and that some of our deeds also will speak favorably for us."
The Chicago Daily News on December 27 said: "The quarrelsome anti-Western tirades, with Russian bloc delegates leading the pack, quickly exposed the true nature of the conference. Such pro-Western countries as Tunisia, Iraq, Libya and Jordan are 'represented' by people who have been exiled as traitors. Russia, which was not invited to Bandung, is at Cairo in full force, with delegates from five of the Soviet republics. With the conference thus stacked, it is no surprise to find that 'neutralism' is somewhat less than neutral. It becomes instead a partisan belaboring the West, on the pretense that the fight is against that favorite bogeyman, imperialism... It is tragic to see the Afro-Asian people being led down a phony anti-imperialist path by Russia, the most blatantly imperialistic nation in the world today.
"In the West, imperialism is waning fast. Ghana and Malaya were given their independence this year by Britain, and well-planned programs leading toward nationhood are being followed in other colonies and protectorates. Tunisia and Morocco gained peaceful separation from France in the recent past. Other French territories in Africa are working toward self-determination with France's blessing and will achieve it in good order unless impatient extremists follow the Algerian pattern and sabotage the plans.
"The Cairo conferees should ask themselves what Russia can demonstrate to compare with this retreat from imperialism. Have they never heard of Hungary? Have they forgotten Latvia, Esthonia and Lithuania?"
The Scripps-Howard newspapers on December 28 pointed out that while the conference in Cairo was giving lip service to self-government and nationalism, the Chinese Communists in Peiping were saying the independence movement of nomad tribes in Sinkiang was not only 'dangerous' but must be stamped out. These papers said:
"'Nationalism' is either a good or bad word in the double-thinking of Communism. The nationalism that's getting a fine big hand at the so-called Afro-Asian Peoples' Conference at Cairo is, of course, and admirable thing. So is the nationalism of Indonesia, Algeria, Tunisia …
"But now comes word of the spread of a 'dangerous nationalism' in Sinkiang Province of Far Western China. It's not only dangerous, but must be stamped out, the Communists say. Why? Because Sinkiang's nomad tribes don't want to be a puppet state of either Red China or the Soviet Union - the province is on the border and could have its choice. The Sinkiang people want a republic all their own. And that kind of nationalism is mighty bad - from the Moscow viewpoint."
Policy Toward Red China
In a series of two articles on Red China published in the New York Herald Tribune on December 8 and 9, A. T. Steele said that if Red China's troubles of 1956 - student unrest, peasant discontent, food shortage, etc. - proved anything, they proved that the socialist pattern in Red China was a long way from being firmly set. He observed that to suppose that the Peiping regime could be influenced to dissociate itself from Moscow through U. S. recognition or admission to the U. N. was implausible to the point of being fantastic. He added that whatever applause the U. S. might earn for itself by recognizing the Chinese Communist regime would be drowned out by the cries of disappointment and distress from Free China, South Korea and other anti-Communist bastions in Asia.
Summing up Mr. Steele's articles, the New York Herald Tribune on December 9 said that the two reports provided a sound and balanced view on the Peiping regime as seen by a man who knew China intimately and had just studied it from immediately across the frontier, Hongkong. As Mr. Steele pointed out, it said, there is little reason to look for major changes in Peiping policy. Nor are there strong commercial arguments for a change in the American policy of non-recognition. What is needed is greater American knowledge of what is going on behind the Bamboo Curtain, 'to the extent,' as Mr. Steele says, 'of legitimate news coverage by American correspondents.' To bring about this desirable news reporting - an inalienable right of a free press - it will be enough, Mr. Steele rightly asserts.
With reference to C. L. Sulzberger's "Where Policy Goes Wrong - Chinese Dust" and "Where Policy Goes Wrong - Conclusions" in the New York Times of November 30 and December 2, Harold Riegelman wrote on December 13 to the Times that Mr. Sulzberger's views had carried to a dead end the "uncertain reasoning" regarding Sino-American relations which marred his earlier observations on Asia. Among other things, Mr. Riegelman asked what the U. S. would get in return for a "quiet negotiation" with the Chinese Communists toward recognition.
The course as Mr. Sulzberger suggested would "serve clear notice on other anti-Communist leaders throughout the world that our (American) support and encouragement are a treacherous basis for any policy of resolute resistance against Red imperialism and enslavement", he remarked.
Following is the text of Mr. Riegelman's article:
"C. L. Sulzberger's articles are always well written and often penetrating. But his 'Chinese Dust' of November 30 and 'Conclusions' of December 2 carry forward to a dead end the uncertain reasoning regarding Sino-American relations, which marred his earlier otherwise illuminating observations on Asia.
"He declares quite correctly that 'we must keep Free China from Communist domination and within our Pacific defense chain.'
"However, he speculates that President Chiang Kai-shek will never return to the mainland, his Government (on what evidence is not disclosed) is not popular in China, and a successor Free Chinese government may seek an accommodation with the present Communist rulers.
"Therefore, he concludes, we should now negotiate 'quietly' with Mao Tse-tung for recognition of his regime and its admission to the United Nations - in exchange for what?
"For promise to respect the independent sovereignty of Free China? Of what worth is such a promise? And what guarantee would such an arrangement be against the 'accommodation' between Free China and Communist China Mr. Sulzberger wishes to forestall?
"The other side of the coin is much more clearly etched. The Chinese Government of which President Chiang Kai-shek is the head contributed greatly to our victory over Japan in World War II by engaging and immobilizing a million Japanese soldiers otherwise available to obstruct our liberation of the Central, South and Southwest Pacific and our final conquest of Japan.
"The Generalissimo's loyalty to his American ally never faltered. 'Beset by Russian-equipped and supplied Chinese Communists immediately after the defeat of Japan, fatally handicapped by a United States-imposed truce while he still had the means of destroying the Communist forces, President Chiang Kai-shek was obliged to yield the mainland and establish the seat of government of Free China in Taiwan.
"There, this time with United States aid, he achieved land reforms, a free economic and industrial development, an effective military force and a representative government, the earlier accomplishment of all of which on the mainland had been frustrated by Communist provoked unrest and rebellion. His foreign policy has been consistently aligned with ours. He is the outstanding symbol of uncompromising resistance against Communism in Asia.
"Will Free China return to the Chinese mainland? It has the means of doing so in case of another global war, or if the growing mainland discontent results in a Chinese 'Hungary.' Or it could occur as a reaction to fresh Communist aggression in Asia. These three eventualities are kept alive and promising so long as Free China remains a beacon of hope for the oppressed millions of mainland Chinese.
"To extinguish that beacon by according recognition and acceptance of the Communist regime while its hands are still red with the blood of Korean aggression, Americans are still held as political hostages and its foreign policy is dedicated to our humiliation and destruction, is neither rational nor defensible. Such a course would also serve clear notice on other anti-Communist leaders throughout the world that our support and encouragement are a treacherous basis for any policy of resolute resistance against Red imperialism and enslavement.
"The 'quiet caution' with which such consequences could be negotiated does not reduce their infamy."
In an article entitled "Some Illusions of Our Asian Policy" in the December 1957 is sue of the Far Eastern Survey, Ernest A. Gross, former U. S. representative at the U. N. General Assembly, advocated that the U. S. should establish "a continuous diplomatic channel" with Red China "at "all requisite levels" for the purpose of bringing Red China to conform to a civilized code of behavior through negotiations. However, he did not believe that U. S. recognition of Peiping or admission of Red China to the U. N. at this time would be wise or timely. He said:
"Would opening up of channels of negotiation lead to ultimate recognition of Communist China? It seems probable that it eventually would, even though negotiation does not in itself involve recognition or imply a commitment to support seating Red China in the United Nations. Indeed, by throwing our full weight and power behind our negotiations, we might induce in the Communist leaders a will to modify their present lawless course of behavior. If so, the present objections to recognition would have been removed. At the present time, I believe recognition would be premature and unwise.
"Our decision to grant or withhold recognition is wholly within our own discretion. This very fact imposes a high duty upon our officials to inform, rather than arouse, public opinion on the matter. I think the American people are capable of judging where the balance of moral principles lies in any issue, if only the facts are fairly presented. It is disturbing to find members of the executive branch of the government exploiting the emotionalism latent in this issue, sometimes in an unreasoning manner.
"For reasons set forth below, I do not believe that seating Communist China in the United Nations is either appropriate or timely.
"The undeniable fact is that there is no alternative to the United Nations. Indeed, the most serious impairment which might be done to the organization would be to foster an attitude among our own people that an event such as seating Communist China (an action over which we do not exercise sovereign control) would destroy the moral foundation of the United Nations.
"There has, incidentally, been some confused talk that the United States might use the veto if a majority of the Security Council voted to seat Communist China. But if this were considered a substantive question (hence subject to the vote), the delegate of the Republic of China could keep himself seated permanently by exercising China's veto. Hence the question of American veto would not arise. And of course, in other organs of the United Nations, the majority will prevail, since there is no veto power."