General Douglas MacArthur's dismissal by President Harry S. Truman has resulted in a controversy in the United States almost unparalleled in American history. That from the standpoint of constitutional authority President Truman has the right to relieve any military commander of his duties is a fact which cannot be denied by the American people including even his severest critics. As to whether the American Chief Executive showed the best judgment in dismissing General MacArthur from all his commands in the Far East. It is a question on which we do not wish to comment. In all probability, the answer to this question cannot be found until future events have unfolded themselves in the course of the next few months or years. There are, however, a few salient facts which can be pointed out here without fear of contradiction. First, in discharging his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the UN forces in Korea, General MacArthur faithfully carried out every order issued to him by his superiors. Second, in his direction of the military operations in Korea General MacArthur did not do anything he was forbidden to so. Third, the only thing General MacArthur did which displeased President Truman and led to his dismissal was his expression of views allegedly contrary to the Far Eastern policy of the American Government, and it is this third fact which we consider to be worthy of careful study from the legal point of view. General MacArthur never directly or openly criticized his Government. He merely expressed his opinion as to how the war could be brought to an early and victorious conclusion. The fundamental question at issue, then is: Is a military commander in the field, while meticulously carrying out the orders of his superiors, entitled to Rive expression to his own views even if those views run counter to the policies of his Government? Does he not, have the right to say what he thinks in private conversations and in letters to his friends? If an answer must be supplied, it should come from the American people as a whole or perhaps the U. S. Supreme Court. In the midst of this controversy on General MacArthur's dismissal and the anxiety it has caused throughout the world, it is gratifying to know from President Truman's latest utterances that the American Government is still firmly resolved to check Communist aggression in the Far East. In the meantime, General MacArthur has returned to the United States and has been accorded a hero's welcome truly unprecedented in its warmth and enthusiasm. President Truman has rightly stated that General Mac Arthur's place in history as one of the greatest American soldiers is established. In our opinion, General MacArthur is more than a distinguished soldier; he is also a great statesman, as has been amply evidenced by his achievements in the Philippines in the pre-war days, by what he accomplished in occupied Japan as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, and by the farsightedness of his views on world affairs. We heartily join with the American people in paying him the tribute which is fully deserved by him, and we sincerely regret that he has relinquished his duties in the Far East at a moment when the Communists arc running amuck under the direction of the conspirators in the Kremlin. In his most eloquent address delivered before Congress on April 19, General MacArthur declared that he was closing - his military career and that as an "old soldier" he was just "fading away." This is a point on which we cannot agree with General MacArthur. He is not fading away and never will. The people of the United States and freedom-loving peoples the world over will continue to look up to General MacArthur as a source of courage and wise counsel. And it is quite within the realm of possibility that the day may not be far distant when the democratic nations will again find it necessary to call upon this venerable old soldier to help stem the rising tide of Communist aggression.
Welcome to General Chase
To Major-General William C. Chase, head of the American Military Advisory Group, and his colleagues we wish to extend our most hearty welcome. When the sending of such a military mission to Taiwan was announced in Washington ten days ago, the news was received by the people of Free China with great enthusiasm and a deep sense of gratification. This action of the American Government, however, was by no means unexpected. Despite the tragic turn of events on the Chinese mainland we had always been confident that the United States would never forsake the freedom-loving people of China. The earliest manifestation of American goodwill toward Free China was the continuation of ECA's assistance to Taiwan. Another indication of American friendship for Free China was Washington's refusal to recognize the Communist regime in Peiping after the National Government had been moved to Taipei. A further step was taken by the American Government last June when, after the outbreak of the war in Korea, President Truman ordered the U. S. Seventh Fleet to patrol the Taiwan Strait in order to prevent the Communists from attacking this island. Then followed fresh indications that the United States was once more ready to extend military assistance to Free China. The sending of an American Military Advisory Group to Taiwan at the present juncture represents the realization of long-cherished hopes on our part. It is an action which shows unmistakably that the United States has always remained a staunch friend of the Chinese people and clearly understands the importance of Taiwan's strategic position in the Pacific. The arrival of Major-General Chase and his colleagues in Taiwan will undoubtedly have the effect of bolstering up the morale of the people of Free China in general and that of our armed forces in particular. With the help of our American friends we shall not fail to make this island an impregnable fortress of freedom and contribute to the ultimate success of the democracies joint struggle with Communism.
Great Britain's "Generosity"
Great Britain's "generosity" - at the expense of Free China is truly amazing. Last month, after the United States had communicated to the Powers concerned, including Free China, the terms of the draft peace treaty with Japan, it was reported that Great Britain had proposed to the American Government that the Communist regime in Peiping be invited to replace the National Government in Taiwan at the signing of the treaty and that it be stipulated that Taiwan should be handed over to Communist China. Britain's proposal is no surprise to us. As a matter of fact, it is quite in line with the stand the British Government has consistently taken during the last one and a half year. Two months after the establishment of the Communist regime in Peiping, Britain hastened to extend her recognition to Mao tse-tung's government, and her representatives at Lake Success have since then repeatedly voted in favor of unseating the delegation of the National Government. What is amazing is the fact that after its offer to establish diplomatic relations with Peiping has been spurned again and again, the British Government is still trying to court the favor of the Chinese Communists. That Britain, who has good reason to be proud of her glorious past, should have stooped so low for a purpose no worthier than that of seeking commercial gains is something absolutely incomprehensible to us. Mr. Clement Attlee, who has inherited Neville Chamberlain's umbrella, the proverbial symbol of appeasement, and his colleagues in the Foreign Office obviously think that the end justifies the means, but they fail to realize that in this particular case the end happens to be something unattainable. The anti-American campaign launched by the Chinese Communists several months ago has been expanded into an anti-Anglo-American movement. If the United States is Peiping's Enemy Number One, Britain must be a close second. Why, then, does Britain insist upon trying to please the Communists by sacrificing the interests of Free China" especially when it is as clear as day that her efforts will prove fruitless? It is highly gratifying that the American Government, through its words and, actions, has made known its decision to reject the British proposal. So far as the people of Free China are concerned, let it be understood once and for all that they are determined to see to it that no Power in the world, not even mighty Britannia, who used to be Mistress of the Seas can make a gift of this island and present it to the Communist regime in Peiping on a silver platter.
More Noise From Lattimore
Owen Lattimore, that pseudo - authority on international relations whom Senator Joseph McCarthy's big guns succeeded in silencing for some time, has again started to make a good deal of noise. Not long ago, he declared in an interview with United Nations correspondents that the Chinese National Government stood no chance of a comeback in China. Said he: "I think the Nationalist government on Formosa is a thing of the past. The problem is one of liquidating the wreckage of the previous government. There is no prospect of reinstating it as the government of China." As for Taiwan, Lattimore intimated he felt that the West should let the Chinese Communists take it if they could, insisting that the island's importance had been grossly exaggerated. The idea that the West should hold the island as a naval base, he said, was "a relic of 19th century naval thinking." Lattimore's, views on the National Government and the strategic value of Taiwan are decidedly biased and unsound, Instead of indulging in a lengthy argument over the issues he has raised, we shall content ourselves with pointing to the act that his views arc shared neither by the American public nor by the civilian, and military leaders of the American Government. The United States, along with the great majority of the members of the United Nations, still recognizes the National Government as the legal Government of the Republic of China, and the American Government has already taken a series of positive steps to prevent Taiwan from falling into Communist hands. If Lattimore is right, then the American public and the Governments of those nations which still recognize the Chinese National Government must be all wrong, which obviously cannot be the case. Whether or not Lattimore is Russia's No. 1 agent in the United States, we cannot say for certain, but one thing at least is undeniable, namely, his pro-Communist sentiments. It is nothing to be wondered at, therefore, that he is in favor of letting the Communists take Taiwan. Despite the many years he spent in this country Lattimore's knowledge of China has always been very superficial, and about the present conditions in Taiwan and on the Chinese mainland -- conditions which form a striking contrast of democratic rule and Communist tyranny -- he knows next to nothing, unless it be that because of his pro-Communist leanings he can see the stark realities of the Far Eastern situation only in a light favorable to Peiping and Moscow. What a pity that such an ignoramus and erstwhile adventurer in China is permitted to mislead Johns Hopkins students devoting themselves to the study of international relations!