The Independence Evening Post said June 23 that President Nixon has mishandled the Cambodian situation.
The paper said: "In spite of President Nixon's efforts to eliminate the Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia, Communist forces are still attacking in force.
"Peiping recently announced continued unwillingness to talk at Warsaw. This means that the Chinese Communists are determined to fight an Indochina war. U.S. withdrawal from Cambodia amounts to giving up their fight against further Communist aggression. Losing Cambodia will mean losing the whole of Indochina, including South Vietnam.
"Nixon said that troops were sent into Cambodia to safeguard U.S. troops in Vietnam and ensure the success of Vietnamization. Now Nixon wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Cambodia and risk the safety of U.S. troops in Vietnam and scuttle Vietnamization.
"Today's problems in Asia make up a whole that cannot be tackled piecemeal. Nixon needs a firmer, more effective plan to face the growing Communist threat."
The English-language China News said June 25 that Nixon's policy in Indochina should be reassessed before it's too late.
The paper said: "Americans who oppose the war in Vietnam want Cambodia to be lost. They think that once the United States has turned its back on one country, it will be easier to desert another and then another. What they have in mind is getting out of Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. They would turn their backs on millions of people who have trusted the United States and permit the Communists to kill or incarcerate them. They insist that U.S. security is not at stake in Southeast Asia.
"This attitude is both immoral and shortsighted in terms of American interest. U.S. security is involved in Southeast Asia as surely as it was in the events that led to December 7, 1941, and Pearl Harbor.
"If the peace-at-any-price advocates had not reacted against the Cambodia move so strongly, Nixon might have allowed Americans to run the Communists out of the country. But when the doves screamed like wounded eagles, Nixon set the 21.7-mile limit for U.S. penetration of Cambodia and promised that all Americans would be back in South Vietnam by July 1.
"So with less than a week to stay in Cambodia, the Americans find themselves in the position of having carried out a brilliant border operation while leaving the rest of the country wide open to Communist aggression.
"Of what avail to seize a river and lose the ocean? If the Communists take over Cambodia, they will soon be back in the sanctuaries. Destruction of the stocks of weapons and supplies has value, but only in the short run. These can be replaced once the bases again are in Communist hands.
"Although it gets later for Cambodia with every passing day, the country could be saved if the United States would give massive backing and air support to South Vietnamese and Thai forces. Cambodia's tragedy is more a matter of its own military weakness than of the Communists' strength. American troops would not be needed.
"If Cambodia is lost, the cost of attacking the sanctuaries will have been paid in vain. The American position in South Vietnam will be more precarious than ever. President Nixon will have unwittingly played into the hands of the appeasers who oppose him and will have weakened his own political position.
"As goes Cambodia, so is likely to go the whole of Southeast Asia. The doves are correct in that assessment. Astute politician and strong anti-Communist that he is, President Nixon had better take another long but fast look at all the implications."
The Chung Yang Jih Pao (Central Daily News) said July 2 that the United States should establish a defense wall to contain Communist aggression.
The paper said: "Every time Indochina victory is in sight, the Americans surrender to anti-war pressures and stop advancing.
"Vietnamization has shown that Asians can do the job if given logistical support. Free Asians are prepared to use American assistance to contain expansive Communist aggression in Indochina.
"Such U.S. help is the only way in which the Americans can implement the Nixon doctrine."
The English-language China Post said June 24 that only the crushing defeat of the Communists will ensure peace in Indochina.
The paper said: "Nearly a year and a half has elapsed since President Nixon moved into the White House and the Vietnam war is still going on. Like his predecessor, President Nixon has never said he is ready to accept defeat in Vietnam. On the other hand, he has never given the impression that he will try to win a decisive victory. What the American chief executive has been trying to do is fulfill the pledge he made in the election campaign of 1968 that he would get all U.S. troops out of Vietnam.
"The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam will continue, but President Nixon is not leaving the Saigon government to its fate. The fact that the American government has been able to continue the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam shows that Vietnamization is proceeding smoothly. However, when will it be possible to say that Vietnamization is complete?
"Washington is pulling only its land forces out of Cambodia. U.S. planes will presumably continue to bomb the Communists there. But will that be enough to save the Phnom Penh government? If Cambodia and Laos should be lost to the Communists the security of Thailand and South Vietnam would be placed in jeopardy.
"Together with Vice President Agnew we must strongly condemn the defeatists in the United States. There can be no just peace in Indochina until a crushing defeat has been inflicted on the Communist aggressors. The bitter experiences the democracies have gone through in the past years should have convinced them that there is no other solution."
The Shin Sheng Pao (New Life Daily News) said June 29 that the United States should continue military assistance to Cambodia.
The paper said: "Communist activities in Cambodia are still seriously threatening the Lon Nol government. If the Cambodian situation is allowed to worsen, the United States will loose her footing in Indochina. There will not be any second front to ward off Communist aggression.
"U.S. military elasticity must be maintained after American troops withdraw from Cambodia. Thai forces alone will not be able to replace the Americans. Joint operations by the Americans, the Thais and the Cambodians must be carried out to ensure the independence of Cambodia regard less of American domestic opposition to Nixon's Cambodian policy."
United Daily News—Dangers of coalition
The Lien Ho Pao (United Daily News) said July 8 that establishment of a coalition government in Vietnam would play into the hands of the Communists.
The paper said: "Recent American diplomatic activities indicate that the United States may have a new peace plan for Indochina. It should not include any coalition government for Vietnam.
"Vietnamization has ensured the survival of a democratic Vietnam. Peace in Indochina depends upon a strong anti-Communist front, not a Communist infiltrated coalition.
"Any concession by the Americans in Paris will amount to a retreat in the face of Communist aggression. American anxiety to get out of Indochina does not warrant betrayal of freedom-loving Asian nations."
Commenting on the same subject, the Chung Kuo Shih Pao (China Times) said July 8: "The Communists may accept the American proposal of a coalition government in Vietnam. However, such a government will not survive. Establishment of a coalition will not quench the Communist thirst for aggression. Asian countries want freedom and democracy, not enslavement and Communism."
The China News said July 15 that the United States cannot afford to lose East Asia to the Communists.
The paper said: "Another act in the Paris fiasco will begin August 3. Ambassador David Bruce will arrive as the new top-level negotiator of the United States and will make no more peace progress than did Henry Cabot Lodge.
"President Nixon means well in dispatching Bruce to Paris and in having Secretary of State Rogers suggest more secret talks. The Communists, however, only consider such gestures as further evidence of American weakness. They have no intention of negotiating anything substantive at Paris.
"As the enemy views the situation, the United States is withdrawing troops from Vietnam and Thailand and wants to pull some out of Korea. American opponents of the Indochina war were strong enough to compel Nixon to get out of Cambodia and leave that country in serious danger.
"Communists believe they will out-last the Americans in Southeast Asia. They think that with the United States gone, they can overthrow the government of President Nguyen Van Thieu.
"In the meantime, they are bidding for possession of Cambodia. If successful, they will have a safe terminus for the Ho Chi Minh trail plus a port only a few hours truck drive from the South Vietnam border.
"The Americans ought to have the imagination to put themselves in the position of the Communists. Given the conditions that presently exist in Indochina, would any aggressor give up and make peace?
"The realities of Indochina are not complicated. There are only three possibilities:
"1. The United States could stay, resume the offensive and hurt the Communists to a point where they would want out of the war. Peace could then be made at Paris or any place else.
"2. Americans could continue to withdraw but implement the Nixon doctrine by sponsoring a Pacific and Asian Treaty Organization to terminate the war victoriously and assure regional collective security.
"3. U.S. withdrawal to a point where a power vacuum was created. The Communists would take over Indochina and move on to such other targets as Thailand, South Korea and Taiwan.
"Many Americans want to cool the war. Only a small minority wants to do so at the cost of an abject defeat and a pullback of U.S. defenses to a Guam-Hawaii-Aleutians line.
"That leaves PATO and U.S. assistance in the defense of Asia by Asians as the only Indochina solution that would assure peace with freedom and security.
"Paris is a will-o'-the-wisp. Vietnamization is fraught with difficulties and will require the presence of sizable American forces for a decade or longer. The United States cannot afford to lose East Asia to the Communists. Creation of PATO is a pressing necessity for all of us—perhaps for the Americans most of all."
China Daily News—Trade aggression
The Chung Hua Jih Pao (China Daily News) said July 9 that Chou En-lai's so-called "four trade principles" reveal the aggressive intentions of the Chinese Communists.
The paper said: "The so-called 'four trade principles' amount to a Chinese Communist scheme to undermine friendly relations between free nations in the Asian and Pacific area. They are a direct intervention in Japanese domestic politics. The Chinese Communists are trying to topple the Sato government and isolate Japan from the free world."
Commenting on the same subject, the Shin Sheng Pao said July 9: "When the Japanese followed the policy of separating politics from economics, the Chinese Communists insisted the two couldn't be separated. Now that Japan is entering world politics, the Communists are trying to sabotage Japanese efforts by insisting that economics be separated from politics. This is clearly shown in Chou En-lai's so-called 'four trade principles.'
"The few Japanese firms which have trade relations with Peiping should realize that the Communists are interested only in political infiltration, not trade. These companies are being openly blackmailed by the Chinese Communists.
"The Japanese government must intensify its guard against Chinese Communist infiltration through companies which have trade relations with Peiping."
The China Post said July 9: "The fact that Peiping has managed to step up its procurements in Japan all these months is apparently designed to achieve, in addition to meeting its urgent need for some specific Japanese goods such as steel and chemical fertilizers, some political objectives.
"The announcement of the so-called 'four new principles' by Chou En-lai last April 15 has further intensified the political tinge of Japan Peiping trade. Japanese traders are required to sever their trade relations with and cease making capital investment in South Korea and the Republic of China, and to discontinue business activities with all government organizations and business firms which have a connection with the participants in the Indochina War, Business firms affiliated with American enterprises are also deprived of any chances of trading with Peiping.
"In complying with Chou En-lai's four principles, Japanese traders would have to sever business relations with practically all their trade partners in the United States, South Korea, the Republic of China and other anti-Communist countries in Indochina. They would have no choice but to serve the political purposes of the Communists by facilitating Communist infiltration and subversion in Japan. The increase in Peiping-Tokyo trade during recent months is bait to lure Japanese traders into accepting the 'four principles.' "
The Shin Sheng Pao said June 25 that Japan should increase her cooperation with nations of the Asian and Pacific region.
The paper said: "In 1953, Mao Tse-tung said in his memorandum on world revolution that a show of military might would frighten Japan into surrender. Mao has been waiting for the situations in Indochina and on the Korean peninsula to worsen and for the end of the U.S.-Japanese security treaty.
"Now that the treaty has been extended, Japan should cooperate with other Asian and Pacific nations to block Maoist aggression.
"Mere extension of the treaty will not be enough to deter Mao but his scheme will work only if Japan isolates herself."
The Lien Ho Pao said June 24 that Japan will assume more Asian defense responsibility now that the security treaty with the United States has been renewed.
The paper said: "Japan's automatic extension of the U.S.-Japanese security treaty is based on the American promise to return the Ryukyus to Japan in 1972. Only details of the return remain to be worked out. In 1972, Japan will be an international political power and the bearer of Asian defense responsibilities."
United Daily News—Treaty violation
The Lien Ho Pao said July 15 that the unilateral U.S. decision to withdraw troops from Korea is a treaty violation.
The paper said: "According to terms of security treaties between the United States and the Republic of Korea, Japan and the Republic of China, any action involving mutual security requires the agreement of both parties. The United States is violating this stipulation and also contradicting the Nixon doctrine.
"U.S. troop withdrawals from Asia should be coordinated with the self-defense buildup of Asian nations. Vietnamization is succeeding. Similar programs should be implemented in other Asian countries where U.S. troops are stationed. U.S. forces should not withdraw unilaterally and leave Korea to Communist aggression."
Commenting on the same subject, the China News said July 14: "Korea would understandably prefer that the 64,000 American troops remain until the Korean armed forces are modernized.
"The Park Chung Hee government has not opposed any and all U.S. troop withdrawals. It accepts the thesis that a partial pullout is inevitable. Timing is at the heart of any differences between the two countries.
"U.S. withdrawals from South Vietnam are proceeding on a schedule geared to the success of Vietnamization. Something of the sort should be possible in Korea, where the need is for weaponry rather than training.
"Fortunately, the Americans seem not to contemplate a total withdrawal from the 38th parallel. Reports from both Seoul and Washington suggest that one of the two divisions will remain in Korea indefinitely as evidence of continuing American commitment to help defend South Korea against Pyongyang-Peiping aggression.
"Koreans, Americans and Japanese are well aware of the extreme bellicosity of Kim Il Sung and the North Korean regime. Japan, which usually tries to hamstring American defense of East Asia, has urged the United States not to go too far in withdrawals from Korea.
"Back in 1950, the Japanese breathed a sigh of relief when the Pusan perimeter stopped the North Korean drive just short of the tip of South Korea. If the Communists had established themselves on the western side of the Tsushima Straits, Japan would have been next. North Koreans might be satisfied with the south for a while, but the Chinese Communists would never stop until they had gotten at the war potential of Japan.
"The United States must listen to the warnings against precipitous or excessive withdrawals from Korea. In all free Asia, there is no dissent from the view that Korea's defenses should not be weakened."
China News—On Hans Morgenthau
Commenting on Hans J. Morgenthau's recent statements about U.S. policy towards China, the China News said July 7 that his arguments are emotional and Communist-oriented.
The paper said: "As if John K. Fairbank wasn't enough of a cross to bear, now comes Hans J. Morgenthau, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.
"Morgenthau is heading up a leftist intellectual movement which demands that the United States not only recognize the Chinese Communists and accept them into the United Nations, but also get out of Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits and terminate military assistance to the Republic of China, thus making Peiping aggression both easy and inevitable.
"Morgenthau is no fool about the realities of international politics. He kicked off his movement with press conferences for United Nations correspondents and at the Overseas Press Club in New York.
"Considering that Morgenthau's arguments are emotional and not intellectual, there is no point in debating the advocacies with him or with his associates and followers.
"Recourse must be to and through the same influencers of opinion and the same mass media that Morgenthau is using. Morgenthau is telling it the Chinese Communist way. This country and its friends must tell China's story and its relationship with the United States the Sino-American way.
"Morgenthau's advocacy may not be part of a conspiracy. Nevertheless, there are a number of influential Americans, including some in government, who think—not necessarily for the same reasons—that the time has come for a change in United States' foreign policy.
"Not many of them go so far as Morgenthau. Most are of the 'two Chinas' persuasion and maintain that the United States should keep its treaty commitment to defend Taiwan against aggression. Yet if this view were to prevail, how long would it be before a shift to the Morgenthau insistence that 'the United States has no responsibility for Taiwan?'
"These peddlers of a new China policy for America should be opposed not so much on moral grounds or ROC self-interest as on what is best for the United States. Not many Americans are prepared to take positive action for the strengthening of a regime that is sworn to destroy them and 'liberate' the United States.
"The United States made mistakes about Japan's intentions in the 1920s and 30s and the result was Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War. Peiping's stab in the back would be with hydrogen-tipped missiles. If the Morgenthau point of view had its way, the United States would be gone from its Far Eastern bases, too. There would be no Philippines, Taiwan, Korea and Japan from which to strike back.
"If the United States survived, it would have to return to island-hopping across the Pacific and onto the Chinese mainland to get at the lair of another aggressor.
"America's China policy serves the interest of the United States. If it did not, it would nave been changed long ago. This is the ground on which we ought to stand in our counter-offensive against Morgenthau and his kind."
China Daily News—Regional security
The Chung Hua Jih Pao said July 8: "Facing a possible American policy change in Indochina, free Asian nations should establish a regional security system and foster military cooperation to fight Communist aggression. Asians should be independent of American concessions or appeasement. Cambodia's survival depends upon anti-Communist support from all free Asian nations. Any form of coalition government in Vietnam would betray anti-Communist efforts in Asia and endanger peace and freedom in Indochina."
The Shin Sheng Pao said July 3 that SEATO nations should cooperate militarily against the Communists.
The paper said: "Now that U.S. ground forces have been withdrawn from Cambodia, the forces of Thailand and South Vietnam will have to help defend Cambodian independence. Other SEATO nations should cooperate militarily to combat the Communist threat of general war.
"The SEATO meeting at Manila should act to strengthen Southeast Asian collective defense."
Commenting on the same subject, the Chung Hua Jih Pao said July 3: "To the Communists, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization is only a name. The Lon Nol government of Cambodia has done more to strengthen Asian unity than SEATO, which has existed for 16 years.
"Free Asian nations have established the general outlines for an Asian regional security system in their military and economic assistance to Cambodia. SEATO should take up its Asian defense responsibilities and bring about the establishment of a security system of all free Asian nations."
The Chung Kuo Shih Pao said July 14 that the United States should center its new Asian policy on the establishment of an Asian collective security system.
The paper said: "Withdrawal of U.S. forces will weaken Asia's anti-Communist defense strength. Neither extensive negotiations nor limited confrontation with the Communists will compel them to desist from aggression.
"The dual strategy of negotiation and confrontation may be the only way to deal with the Communists in Indochina. However, to negotiate without firm principles and to fight with limited military strength will only serve to stimulate new anti-war sentiment. The only sensible alternative is the establishment of a free Asian collective security system."
China Post—U Thant's lobbying
The China Post of July 3 said U Thant should refrain from lobbying on behalf of the Chinese Communists.
The paper said: "Foreign Ministry spokesman Wei Yu-sun's expression of regret over U.N. Secretary General U Thant's call for United Nations admission of the Peiping regime was timely. U Thant was speaking at a ceremony marking the 25th anniversary of the signing of the U.N. Charter.
"U Thant admitted that Red China, which has ruled the Chinese mainland through tyranny and oppression, has flouted the U.N. Charter and been condemned by the world body as an aggressor. It is obvious that such a regime does not have the qualifications for membership in the U.N. The Charter provides that 'membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.' The Chinese Communists can never pass such a test.
"U Thant's proposal is an insult to the Republic of China and a disgracing of the U.N. Charter. U Thant seems to forget that as Secretary-General, he is only the chief administrative officer of the United Nations. He is not a political officer and should refrain from making political statements. He should refrain from further lobbying on behalf of the Chinese Communists."