The Chinese Communists gleefully watched the unfolding of the Middle East crisis, flexed their flabby muscles and boasted of licking Britain and the United States, together if need be, safe in the knowledge that their words would not be tested in any eventuality.
Following in every step the lead of Moscow, Peiping issued on July 16 a formal statement "strongly condemning and protesting" the landing of U.S. Marines in Lebanon. The People's Daily, while hailing "The Great Victory of the Iraqi People," called upon the world "To Take Action To Stop American Aggression." On July 18, it editorialized that "The American and British Aggressors Are Cooperating to Seek Their Own Grave."
At the signal from the Kremlin, the Chinese Communists turned on every propaganda medium across the mainland. In Peiping, Chen Yi, "deputy premier and foreign minister," attended a 500,000-man rally in support of "the struggle of the Arabian people," together with diplomats of the Soviet bloc and the so-called neutralist countries. Peng Chen, puppet "mayor," vowed that the Chinese Communists would again defeat the United States, "as we did in Korea."
As there were no Americans in sight, the demonstrators gathered in front of the British Charge d'Affaires' Office in a "voluntary demonstration," led by Wang Wei, secretary of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Youth Corps, as identified by the official New China News Agency, They readily produced slogans and cartoons and completely covered the walls and roof of the building with them. When no space was left, latecomers hung a big piece of cloth from the chimney on which was a cartoon with the caption: "U. S. and British Troops Get Out from the Middle East." The endless parade passing by the British Charge d'Affaires' Office lasted 32 hours, according to Radio Peiping: The regime would have no trouble keeping it going for another 64 hours for all it need is to say the word.
The same mass rallies, demonstrations, newspaper editorials and protesting letters were repeated in every major city on the mainland, to whip up hysteric hatred against the West and to divert public attention from domestic difficulties, not the least of which is the serious draught threatening half of the country. Harbin, Kunming, Taiyuan, Chengtu, Nanchang, Lanchow, Sian, Shanghai, Nanking, Tientsin, Canton, Anshan, Huhehot, Urumchi, and Shumchun saw the same shows directed by the same master propagandists.
As thorough-going Marxists, Peiping not only protested to Britain over the sending of troops into Jordan at the request of King Hussein, it even ordered its operatic troupe in London to pack up for the mainland, refunding all tickets sold beforehand. On July 20, the People's Daily got so bold as to declare that "We Can't Just Sit Idly By," asking the people "to be prepared."
If it hadn't done anything, it had at least made a lot of noise.
War With Tito
Before the Middle East crisis overshadowed all other wrangles on either side of the Iron Curtain, the Communist dominated press on the mainland were busy denouncing Tito, who said in Labin on June 15 that the Chinese Communists occupied "the same platform as the most reactionary warmongering elements in the West." Moreover, Tito said flatly that Peiping opposed his revisionism because it was in economic trouble and needed loans from Moscow.
Said the Yugoslav marshal: "If these Chinese leaders found internal difficulties - and doubtless they have - let them solve these difficulties with means other than that of antagonism toward Yugoslavia." He said again: "The key to the problem is that they (the Chinese Communists) are bothered by our peaceable policy, policy of peace, policy of coexistence." It was the worst thing a Communist could have said to another.
There was little wonder that Peiping hit back with full fury, after a silence of 10 days in which the reply must have been rewritten time and again. On June 26, the People's Daily carried a full text of Tito's speech and an article by its commentator entitled: "The More Evil Is Covered Up, the More It Is Obvious."
Despite the time it took, the refutation was not very convincing, stuffed with such hackneyed phrases like "the voice of a traitor" and "an opportunist." "The Tito elements," charged the paper, "while putting out the signboard of Marxism-Leninism and a socialist country, mix themselves in the ranks of the international proletariat to corrode, disintegrate and subvert.
"This has compelled us to show them in their true colors, with resolution. Some people say: 'Why is it necessary to drive Tito to the side of the imperialists?' But the present facts show that it is not because he has been driven to do so that Tito persists in his revisionist, pro-imperialist stand. Moreover, it seems that he will on no account give up his neutralist or socialist signboard and go straight over to the side of imperialism without pretense, because he 'knows' how to retain his bargaining position."
Shouted the commentator: "Whether it was during the uprising of the Nagy counter-revolutionary group in Hungary in 1957, or in the Seventh Congress of the Yugoslav League of Communists and the program it adopted, or in the so-called protest made in Yugoslavia following the recent verdict on the Nagy counter-revolutionary group in Hungary, the Tito elements acted as the anti-Soviet and anti-Communist vanguard for the imperialist reactionaries! Nonetheless, Tito still persists in stating that he has never set himself against the Soviet Union, nor has he supported imperialism, and, what is more, his policy is the same as the policy of the Soviet Union. To use Tito's own words, this is 'the height of cynicism.'''
In defense of itself, the People's Daily found this excuse: "In his speech Tito frantically attacked the Chinese Communist Party. For us, this is merely a cause for pride. The struggle of Marxist-Leninists against the revisionists is unavoidable and it is the praise of revisionists or imperialists that is to be dreaded. The criticism made by the Chinese Communists against the Yugoslav revisionists has obviously hit them where it hurts. As they found no way to fan up nationalist hatred among the people on pretexts deriving from past Sino-Yugoslav relations, they were compelled to cook up some particularly preposterous - and therefore particularly clumsy - lies to fight with."
The Nagy Case
What particularly incensed Peiping in Tito's Labin speech was undoubtedly the inference that the Chinese Communists acted as Moscow's puppet in the denunciation of Yugoslav revisionism merely because they wanted more loans to tie them over domestic difficulties. It was indeed Tito who had hit at where it hurt, because he knew it was true.
It was exactly for this reason that Peiping, of all the satellite countries, was the first to applaud the execution of Imre Nagy. And in so doing, the Chinese Communists spared no effort in blaming it all on Tito and his revisionism.
On June 18, the People's Daily said the death sentence on Nagy "is welcome news," which "brings to mind the ignominious role played by the Yugoslav revisionists in the counter-revolutionary rebellion launched by the Nagy clique." It called the Hungarian revolution "a sharp struggle by Marxism-Leninism to defeat revisionism on the ideological front," and declared that "there is not the slightest ground for compromise between Marxists and revisionism."
On June 20, the paper again editorialized on "Our Lessons from the Counter-Revolutionary Rebellion of the Nagy Clique." It started off by saying, without the slightest blush of shame, that the execution "is fitting for those who collaborate with the imperialists and work within the socialist countries to restore counter-revolutionary rule. This is the shameful end for those renegades who carry the white flag of revisionism in a vain attempt to drag the people back to the capitalist abyss of misery."
It tried to make readers on the Chinese mainland believe that: "The People's Tribunal of the Hungarian Supreme Court proved, with, the help of indisputable witnesses and evidence covering many points, that Nagy and his accomplices had secretly been engaged in traitorous activities for almost one whole year before the Hungarian incident. These traitors had since long intended to usurp state power. They had set up several secret centers to direct armed revolts and secured the help of the imperialists." Then it went on to link up Hungary with Yugoslavia:
"The court investigation of the Nagy counter-revolutionary clique exposed the real countenance of the revisionists more clearly. To deceive the masses, the renegades, who deserted the socialist path and betrayed the interests of the people over a long period, donned the garment of 'socialism.' They tried their utmost to attack the socialist system and slander the Soviet Union, opposed the proletarian dictatorship and sabotaged international proletarian solidarity. They boasted of the so-called 'neutral' policy of non-participation in any bloc.
"In many instances touching principles of internal and external policy not only did the Nagy revisionists follow the Yugoslav revisionists, they were in direct contacts for a long time. After the failure of the counter-revolutionary rioting, the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest even extended protection to Nagy and Losonczy and allowed them to make contacts with the so-called Budapest central workers' council, and 'Radio Free Europe' and went as far as to publish the secret newspaper October 23rd."
This is Peiping speaking, the regime which some people still hope might some day follow the road of Tito.
Troublesome Sinkiang
Domestically, the Chinese Communists were troubled by another brand of revisionism - local nationalism. The area in ferment was Sinkiang, largest of the provinces on the Chinese mainland, rich in oil and uranium deposits, the gateway to Cathay from Soviet Central Asia, where the Communists were racing to complete a railway linking Northwest China with the Soviet Turksib Railway System.
Just when did trouble break out in Sinkiang was uncertain. The Chinese Communists have a habit of completely blacking out unfavorable news while it happened, sometimes for as long as several months. In this case, the People's Daily of Peiping simply reported that the Chinese Communist Party Committee for Sinkiang Uigur Autonomous Area held an enlarged meeting "recently," attended by 381 cadres of all levels. No date was given, but the enlarged meeting could have been held in late 1957 as the paper mentioned a report made by Saiffudin, secretary of the CCP Committee, on "Firmly Oppose Local Nationalism and Struggle for the Great Victory of Socialism," which was printed by the People's Daily on December 26 last year.
Exactly what did happen was also not certain, however, the scope of activities of the "rightist elements" expelled from the Chinese Communist Party in this enlarged meeting must have been extensive. The few names given by the Party organ were half the story. The were:
-Tze-ya Sai-mai-ti (phonetic, same in following), "Commissioner of Culture," CCP secretary for "Department of Culture, Government of Sinkiang Uigur Autonomous Area," chairman of Cultural Federation and Writers Association.
-I-pu-la-yin-tu-erh-ti, "Commissioner of Civil," Affairs CCP secretary for "Department of Civil Affairs, Government of SUAA," and vice chairman of Writers Association.
-Ah-pu-tu-la-yi-mu Ai-sha, alternate member of CCP Committee for SUAA, and "Deputy Governor" of Ili Kazakh Autonomous Chou."
-Ah-sai-teh, "mayor" of Urumchi, capital of SUAA.
-Ah-pu-lieh-tze Ka-li, "Deputy Commissioner of Commerce."
According to the People's Daily: "The meeting used the methods of 'big blooming' and 'big contending' to wage a severe and vigorous struggle against the principal dangerous tendency currently existing within the Party in Sinkiang, namely local nationalism." It indicated that the five expelled from party ranks were only the leaders and "those others who committed serious errors of local nationalism were all subjected to searching criticisms. Grave dispositions were taken against each on the basis of the nature of their mistakes and the performance of their confessions and repentances respectively."
"What were the crimes of these "local nationalist elements'? Charges levelled against the five in the CCP meeting showed that they "smeared the policy of self-government for autonomous areas, demanded the establishment of a separate republic, and wanted to abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat and substitute it with capitalist rule." Specifically, Peiping admitted that:
1. "These local nationalist elements organized small cliques for sectarianist activities, proposed reactionary doctrines, demanding the establishment of an independent republic or a republic as part of a union and changing in the name of the Autonomous Area into either 'Uigurstan' or 'East Turkestan'. Some even hoped for tension in the international scene, leading toward a Hungarian type incident in the country, incident in the country, so that Sinkiang would gain its independence."
2. "Their principle is the expulsion of the Han people. They say that the Autonomous Area should belong to the Uigurs, opposing the appointment of persons of other nationalities to administrative or party positions... Some viciously attacked the Army Group stationed here for production and reconstruction."
3. "They sympathized deeply with the riotings organized by counter-revolutionaries, describing them as 'the people's action of justice.' They harbored counter-revolutionaries or released them unconditionally, or even planted landlords, rich farmers, bad elements and counter-revolutionaries inside government organs, enterprises and schools."
4. "They oppose socialist reform and socialist reconstruction. They say that contradictions exist in regard to cooperativization and the land problem in Sinkiang, that socialist economy is impossible, and that cooperativization merely transplants the economy of Han areas and therefore does not conform with 'nationality traits and characteristics' in Sinkiang."
5. "They said 'the Party has become a party for the Han people' and 'Marxism is monopolized by one nationality.'
They pursued anti-Party sectarian activities, discriminated against Han cadres within Party organizations, and dealt blows against those nationalities leaders who insist on Party policies."
While an editorial appearing on the same issue of People's Daily boasted of "great victories" in the struggle against local nationalism, it was clear that trouble was not yet over for the Chinese Communists in Sinkiang. The Sinkiang Daily News, published in Urumchi, began printing letters and articles from Uigur and other minority readers in a massive campaign to "struggle against local nationalism to the end." There seemed, however, to be no end in sight as long as 70 percent of the population in Sinkiang remain Uigurs.
The Dry Earth
All over the Chinese mainland, draught hang like an albatross around the neck of Communist cadres in agricultural production cooperatives. From all signs available to date, it could be the worst year since Peiping started its first five-year plan six years ago.
The New China News Agency admitted on June 28 that "draught is threatening seriously the areas of the middle and lower Yellow River, the entire Huai River, the middle and lower Yangtze River, and a part of the Northeastern provinces." Anyone with a basic conception of Chinese geography would know instantly that the description covers more than half of the mainland, and at least three quarters of the food-producing areas.
The Communists have a curious habit of reporting natural calamities. When there is a flood, they boast incessantly of great victories in fighting the water. The same applies to the following passages broadcast by the NCNA, betraying the extent of the current draught:
"Hopei is fighting the summer draught with experiences learned from the successful campaign against spring draught. In such areas as Tientsin, Paoting and Shihchia-chuang, where the draught is more serious, more than 2,000,000 persons are working day and night to open up new water sources for irrigation purposes.
"In Shantung, every day a labor force of 15,000,000 persons took part in the activities of preserving seedlings and saving them from the draught.
"In Honan, 15,000,000 laborers are mobilized daily, attacking the draught at a speed of planting 2,000,000 mou every 24 hours.
"In Anhwei, between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 farmers are fighting the dry weather. Many agricultural production cooperatives put up temporary shelters in the fields, and their members took turns in fighting to get water day and night.
"Similar anti-draught struggles were launched in Heilungkiang, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Area, Hupei and Kiangsu."
Unhappy Novelist
Before the war, the name of Po Chin was to everyone who reads Chinese that of Ernest Hemingway to English-speaking peoples. His three massive novels in a series, "Home", "Spring" and "Autumn", sold more than 1,000,000 copies, were turned into plays and made into money-making movies.
After some sort of a honeymoon with the Communists, "Comrade" Pa Chin got into trouble recently, all for something he said back in the "blooming and contending" days of 1957. The first paper to open fire was the Wen Hui Pao, one-time home base of rightist intellectuals in Shanghai, now completely reorganized and back into line. On June 14, it printed a letter signed by Yü Ting, a "reader," who took the venerable author to task because he said in a public meeting: "Return literature and art to the people!"
''Needless to say, Comrade Pa Chin's slogan is incorrect and erroneous," asserted the letter. "Today, in the age of proletarian dictatorship, there can be only two kinds of literature and art: it must be either the people's literature and art, led by the Party, or the anti-people literature and art, led by the bourgeoisie... This is point number one.
"Now for point number two: Comrade Pa Chin's slogan is supposed to represent the demand and voice of the people, but why has not a single bona fide worker or peasant come out to voice his support or approval? Oddly enough, the slogan has evoked consonance and enthusiastic response from among a very large number of intellectuals and rightists!
"To 'return literature and art to the people' is in effect a demand for the transfer of the leadership for literature and art from the hands of the Party to the hands of the bourgeois intellectuals, and in fact to the hands of the bourgeoisie. In a word, - it is a demand to the Party to desist from interfering with literature and art, to abolish Party leadership and supervision of literature and art...
"As a progressive writer, Comrade Pa Chin should have looked squarely at his own problems and come out, courageously to criticize himself after the rectification and the anti-rightist struggle. As Comrade Pa Chin's loyal reader, I have told myself that he would. That is why I have waited such a long time for news of Comrade Pa Chin's ideological leap forward."
Of course, Pa Chin had to make the "ideological leap forward" now that his name was called. In a letter to "Comrade Editors" of Wen Hui Pao he humbly agreed that: "Since the liberation I have written a great deal and have said a great deal that is wrong." He admitted he had "confusion in my literary thinking," often "made erroneous utterances," and was "never able to get out of the confines of the petty bourgeoisie."
He pleaded for time: "Only a few days ago I wrote an article, 'Old Intellectuals Must Remold Themselves.' Another word, 'speedily', should have been inserted between 'must' and 'remold.'... I know that the remolding of old intellectuals cannot be accomplished in one day, but the situation is pressing and this remolding has to be speeded up. I have more or less 'surrendered' my heart... So, while I help to propagandize the general line with the utmost zeal, I often ask myself: What in reality can I do for the general line? I am worried because I have not yet answered that question. I seem to hear a voice in my ear, constantly urging me to speed up remolding myself. It is the voice of my conscience. I am determined to remold myself."
If Pa Chin thought he had debased himself enough and therefore would earn a period of grace from the Chinese Communists, he was mistaken. The Wen Yi Pao (Literary Gazette) and Wen Hsueh Yueh Pao (Literary Monthly) also began to print letters from "readers" denouncing Pa Chin and declaring that his latest writings showed that he had "lost his political stand."