Commenting on President Nixon's Vietnam peace plan, the Lien Ho Pao (United Daily News) said May 16 that the United States should not risk a quick withdrawal.
The paper said: "President Nixon has advanced an 8-point program for Vietnam peace based on mutual troop withdrawals within 12 months.
"Nixon must continue to seek peace. But if Hanoi accepts his proposal, these points must be kept in mind:
"- Troop withdrawal would be meaningless if North Vietnamese pretended to leave but really went over to the Viet Cong. Even if North Vietnam withdraws its forces, who can guarantee they would not return. The international supervisory body suggested by President Nixon would be as ineffective as that established in Korea.
"- The suggested elections would nullify the new constitution and scrap the Saigon government elected by the South Vietnamese last year.
"Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp, former commander of U.S. Pacific Forces, says the United States could have won the Vietnam war. Although South Vietnamese forces may gradually take over U.S. combat missions, the United States would be making a big mistake by withdrawing its forces in the period of a year."
The Chung Yang Jih Pao (Central Daily News) said May 16 that President Nixon's 8-point program is not feasible.
The paper said: "The Communists always try to obtain on the political front what they could not win on the battlefield.
"The 8-point program is not feasible. If it were implemented, the Viet Cong would continue their political struggle. They would undertake 'democratic struggle' to overthrow the Saigon government and would use 'coalition government' to seize power.
"The Geneva Accord of 1954 was aimed at neutralizing Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Vietnam would be confronted with continuing internal 'struggle. "
Commenting on the same subject, the English-language China News said: "President Nixon's Vietnam peace plan does not include much that is new or surprising.
"The United States has advocated mutual withdrawals ever since President Johnson de-escalated the bombing of North Vietnam and decided not to seek military victory.
"Nixon's proposals merely spell out the withdrawal plan in detail. The major steps would be withdrawal of the major proportion of American, North Vietnamese and other foreign forces within 12 months. Remaining forces would withdraw to enclaves in South Vietnam and would not conduct offensive operations. Pullout of these residual forces would be carried out on the basis of mutuality.
"An international supervisory body would verify the withdrawals and supervise South Vietnam elections in which all elements of the population would be represented. Prisoners would be released as soon as practical. The Geneva accords of 1954 and the Laos agreement of 1962 would be enforced and the North Vietnamese required to withdraw from Laos and Cambodia.
"President Nixon did not address the American people to set forth a detailed proposition that could have been advanced by Henry Cabot Lodge at Paris.
"He was telling the United States that while he is pledged to seek peace in Vietnam, it will not be peace at any price. He was telling the free Vietnamese that 'Our allies are not going to be let down'. He was telling the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong that while he is president, the United States is not going to walk away and leave South Vietnam to a Communist fate.
"While he did not threaten the enemy in specific terms, he made it clear that the United States has other options in mind. His exact words were, 'If the needless suffering continues, this will affect other decisions' regarding the war.
"Both North Vietnam and the Viet Cong have already indicated opposition to mutual withdrawal. They demand that the Americans and other Saigon allies go home while the North Vietnamese stay on. The elections they propose would be supervised by a coalition government dominated by the Communists and not by an international body. The outcome would not be in doubt.
"The reaction of Hanoi and the Viet Cong to the Nixon package will be negative and bellicose. They are prepared to wait and see what other decisions the American chief executive had in mind. In the end, it wil1 be what the United States does and not what the United States says that will determine whether the Communists will finally understand that they cannot win South Vietnam by violence, conspiracy or wearing the United States down.
"President Nixon showed considerable courage in the face of mounting opposition to the war among some members of his own party. He said that South Vietnamese forces soon will be ready to take over a larger share of the fighting but did not promise any U.S. troop withdrawals. He said, too, that he is prepared to accept personal responsibility for his peace policies and called upon the American people to support him and the American fighting forces in South Vietnam.
"His assurance that South Vietnam and other allies will not be let down is important to the morale of free Asia and to continued resistance to Communism throughout the region. If he will now respond to the stepped up Viet Cong-North Vietnamese aggression with stronger military action, there is hope that the enemy may finally come to realize Nixon means what he says. If there is to be no American victory in South Vietnam, neither is there to be Communist triumph and takeover."
China Times - War on mankind
The Chung Kuo Shih Pao (China Times) said May 5 that Mao's foreign policy in the wake of the Ninth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party amounts to a declaration of war against mankind.
The paper said: "Mao's control of the Chinese Communist Party seems to have been established at the Ninth National Congress. Western observers have thought that with the end of the 'cultural revolution', Mao might pursue softer and more rational domestic and foreign policies. It is possible he may seek trade ties with other countries, consider reopening of the Warsaw talks, improve diplomatic relations with India, North Vietnam and Russia, and establish diplomatic ties with Canada and Italy.
"However, Mao's line cannot be forecast through the application of logic. He has determined to follow 'his proletariat revolutionary line in opposition to Liu Shao-chi. Having seized power, he cannot soften his policies.
"Lin Piao spoke of 'four big conflicts' in his political report to the Congress:
"1. Struggle of enslaved peoples against imperialism and socialist imperialism.
"2. Conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in capitalist and revisionist countries.
"3. Conflicts between imperialist and socialist imperialist countries and between imperialist countries.
"4. Conflict between the socialist countries and the imperialist and socialist imperialist countries.
"Mao's foreign policy is to unite followers of Marxism-Leninism and the proletarians so as to defeat imperialism headed by the United States, modern revisionism headed by Russia and all the reactionaries of the world.
"Mao divides the anti-Communist bloc into imperialist and socialist imperialist countries and the East European Communist bloc into revisionist and socialist countries. He is trying to undermine the unity of the democratic nations and instigate class struggles within Communist countries.
"Mao's three-antis of anti-America, anti-Russia and anti-democratic governments will be carried out in that order. Mao's anti-American policy will be carried out through 'people's war' in Southeast Asia. He hopes to force an American withdrawal from Asia and the Pacific area. His anti-Russian policy will be carried out by undermining the Warsaw Pact organization and winning the support of Romania. His anti-democratic government policy will be carried out with threats of nuclear power to head off attack by free world nations. These are blueprints for Mao's destruction of the world and a declaration of war against mankind."
The Chung Yang Jih Pao said May 10 that the free world must not be misled by Mao Tse-tung's talk of peace.
The paper said: "Mao's Ninth National Congress ended two weeks ago. However, the Chinese Communist Central Secretariat has not yet been established. The establishment of the secretariat is vital in carrying out Mao's 'proletariat policies'. This indicates that factional struggles among Mao, Lin Piao and Chou En-lai are not over.
"Mao depends on Chen Po-ta and Kang Sheng to isolate Chou and Lin in the 'Central Political Bureau'. But Mao must continue to use Chou to keep the revisionists from open rebellion. Mao has made Lin Piao his successor to maintain control of the armed forces.
"Some Western observers believe that Mao's anti-Russian policy may soften his attitude toward the West. This is most unlikely. Mao's fear of capitalism is related to his fear of revisionism. Mao knows that foreign affairs and policies are Chou En-lai's 'political capital'. Most of the Chinese Communist cadres in foreign affairs are regarded as revisionists. Improved relations with the West would only strengthen Chou's political stand and give Teng Hsiao-ping and Liu Shao-chi a chance for counterattack. On the other hand, Lin Piao is not willing to see Chou and his supporters regain power.
"Mao is presently advocating his new 'three-antis'. However, he cannot be anti-imperialist, anti-Russian revisionist and anti-reactionary all at the same time. When Mao is anti-imperialist, he will not advocate ant-Russian revisionism. When he is advocating anti-Russian revisionism, he may be willing to 'sit down and talk' with the 'American imperialists'. However, all these moves will serve to cover Mao's preparations for a third world war."
The China News said April 30 that 'Mao's troubles are not ending with the Party congress".
The paper said: "Mao's rump congress has met, established the Mao party, named Lin Piao as Mao Tse-tung's successor and identified the United States and the Soviet Union as supreme, priority enemies.
"So what has changed on the mainland?
"With the congress adjourned after an abnormally long run of 24 days, everything looks much the same.
"The 'great proletarian cultural revolution' continues - by Lin Piao's own admission.
"Such control as can be exercised remains in the hands of the 'people's liberation army', but the military is factionalized.
"Still undecided is the struggle between the army and the revolutionary group of Chiang Ching, Mao's wife.
"What the Maoist party did decide, apparently, is to attempt the externalization of the mainland struggle. Mao hopes to put the people back in their straitjacket with the excuse of preparation for a nuclear war of survival.
"The latest propaganda line is that the United States and the Soviet Union are going to join in attacking the mainland with nuclear weapons.
"Possibly this is not only an excuse for further suppression of the people but also a smokescreen for a renewal of Mao adventurism. The Indian border is tense once more.
'There are a number of other places in which the Maoist Communists might lash out, including the Taiwan Straits.
"Mao needs a small war to save himself. He also needs to convene a people's congress to drag out Liu Shao-chi and destroy revisionism. Possibly he will brave the war but not the congress. The termination of the right even to try for a better life could plunge the mainland into the civil strife that has been barely avoided during the last three years.
"Mao's troubles are not ending with the party congress. His old difficulties are still present. The only difference is that some new ones have been added."
China Post - Exit of de Gaulle
Commenting on Charles de Gaulle's resignation as president of France, the China Post said April 30 that de Gaulle's policies had failed to recognize world trends toward anti-Communism.
The paper said: "De Gaulle had declared before the referendum that he would resign immediately if constitutional reform was rejected by the French people. The proposal was rejected and he announced his resignation. He gambled and lost.
"It is unlikely that de Gaulle will stage another comeback. Last Friday de Gaulle warned of 'national confusion' if he was thrown out. Gaullist lieutenants painted more dramatic pictures of 'deep trouble' and possible 'chaos'. We do not believe that de Gaulle wants confusion or chaos.
"De Gaulle brought political stability to France in the early years of the postwar period. However, many of his policies did not show much wisdom and farsightedness. His decision to renounce the friendship of the Republic of China and establish diplomatic relations with the Peiping regime did not do France any good. It only enabled the Chinese Communists to carryon large-scale espionage in Western Europe and incite French students and workers to create disturbances.
"His belief in the possibility of bringing about an East-West detente through the adoption of a soft policy toward the Soviet Union was entirely unrealistic. He then took steps which weakened NATO. AU this was due to de Gaulle's jealousy of the part played by the United States in European affairs. He wanted to make France the leader of Europe. Another policy of de Gaulle which we cannot fully understand was his stubborn refusal to let Britain into the European Common Market.
"If de Gaulle had pursued policies different from those mentioned, France would have contributed more to the' solidarity of the democratic powers in Western Europe."
Commenting on the same subject, the China News said April 29 that chaotic times may lie ahead for France.
The paper said: "Interesting and possibly chaotic times lie ahead for France. The Great One-France's long-time father image-is passing from the scene.
"Charles de Gaulle lost the referendum in which he hoped to break the Paris bureaucrats' control of the nation and shift the line of presidential succession to his own appointee. He had staked his political future on the outcome.
"France wasn't voting against de Gaulle's proposals-which were never regarded as very important-but against the general himself. The expectation is that after a brief pre-election interlude under Senate President Alain Poher, France will turn to former Premier Georges Pompidou as the successor to de Gaulle.
"People sometimes have a folk wisdom that transcends the sagacity of their leaders. That may be the case in the French rejection of the man who has led them so long, the man who gave back France its pride in World War II and the man who saved the country from anarchy and probably from Communism after the war.
"Today's France is relatively quiescent. Portents are good for an orderly transfer of power. This is the best time for de Gaulle to step down. If he were to retire or die at a moment of French crisis, there would be the devil to pay.
"Then, too, France is sorely in need of bureaucratic reforms that de Gaulle did not understand. The need is not to carve the country up into regional enclaves, as de Gaulle was proposing in the referendum, but to get the government off the backs of the people.
"lnternationahy, the retirement of de Gaulle has large implications for Western European economic and defense unity. Pompidou will be less hostile to the British. France's military position in NATO may be resumed in time. In such matters, both the French and their neighbors will find it a relief to have the 'greatest mind of the17th century' removed from the scene.
"De Gaulle is not dead, however. As the 78-year-old hero of France sits out the retirement years in his country home at the village of Colombey Les-Deux-Eglises, the French may take comfort from the likelihood that in time of national emergency he could return to save France once again. De Gaulle has retired before. While life is left, he remains a potent force in the life and politics of his country."
United Daily News - New look for SEATO
The Lien Ho Pao said May 8 that the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) should be re-organized.
The paper said: "The SEATO ministerial meeting is scheduled to take place May 20-21 at Bangkok and member nations will conduct a joint naval exercise. This sounds routine. However, the 15-year-old organization faces a choice between reorganization or extinction.
"SEATO was established in September, 1954, with eight members: the United States, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines and Pakistan. It was intended to deter Communist expansion in this part of the world.
"However, the eight nations did not give sufficient power to the organization and only three are Asian countries. The Republics of China and Korea, both firm anti-Communist countries, were not invited to join.
"SEATO has been unable to play an active role in such cases of Communist aggression as Laos and Vietnam. Supposedly, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia are protected by the organization.
"The Philippines has suggested scrapping SEATO. But the United States is not likely to go along.
"An effective SEATO should be as militarily powerful as NATO."