Whether the Bermuda Conference which opens on December 4 will lead to a new Munich depends entirely on the firmness with which President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles resist the British pressure to yield to Communist blackmail. Though the United Kingdom is supposed to be a member of the free world, she has been lukewarm in her support of the democratic cause in the global struggle between Communism and democracy. She has joined with India, her protege, in clamoring for appeasement of the aggressor in the Far East in a variety of ways. Her contribution to the UN forces fighting in Korea was merely symbolic, and yet she has presumed to dictate as to how the war against the Communist, aggressors should and should not be fought and with what weapons. She has been trading with the enemy all along. To the extent that she has been a divisive influence among the democracies, she has encouraged the Communists to be more forward and daring. Her attitude towards the puppet Peiping regime is that of a neutralist appeaser rather than of an earnest fighter for democracy and freedom.
The idea of a Bermuda Conference is the brain child of the British Prime Minister, the vainglorious Winston Churchill, who will stop at nothing to placate Moscow and Peiping and to pose as the archangel of peace for the remaining days of his earthly existence, which he knows to be numbered. Churchill at 79 is a decrepit old man dreaming of "top-level conferences" with the slave-drivers of the Kremlin, and the Bermuda Conference, which had been planned for July but had to be postponed owing to his physical breakdown, is intended to pave the way for that meeting with Malenkov which has become almost an obsession with him.
A meeting with Malenkov in the present state of the world situation is highly dangerous because of the strong British desire and disposition, to strike a bargain with Moscow at the expense of those who are not represented at the secret conclave. The British press has been advocating in recent months a return to the time-honored but universally discredited practice of secret diplomacy, ostensibly to facilitate negotiation, but really to effect underhand dealings after the Bismarckian fashion. (See The London Economist which advocates this point of view in an article entitled "Demagogues at UNO" in its issue of September 5, 1953.) The world still remembers with pain, and dismay the tragic consequences of the Yalta Conference, to which Churchill was a party, at which a chain reaction was set off that led step by step to the Russian occupation of Manchuria, the loss of the Chinese mainland to the Communists, the Communist aggression against the Republic of Korea, and the whole mess we find today in the Far East. If we should revert to secret diplomacy, as the British politicians including Churchill would like to do, the world would retrograde to the days before President Woodrow. Wilson had enunciated, in ringing phrases, the famous Fourteen Points of which the very first one proclaimed the principle of "open covenants openly arrived at." If the Fourteen Points could be scrapped to suit the convenience of power politics, why not the Atlantic Charter, of which Churchill himself was a co-signatory with President Franklin D. Roosevelt? and why not the United Nations Charter? The scrapping of anyone of these epoch-making documents would mean that the wars which have been fought in its name would have been fought in vain. A high-level conference with Stalin's successor in the Kremlin, at which the interests of the non-participating nations would be sacrificed to satisfy the Communist dictator, would be secret diplomacy of the foulest kind. But it is just the sort of behind-the scenes transaction, of which Churchill is a past master.
President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles will have to deal cautiously with the grand old trickster at Bermuda lest they be persuaded to believe in the innocuousness of a meeting with Malenkov. Any such meeting can have but one result if it is to be a success at all, namely, mutual concessions. The only concessions which selfish and hardened diplomats of the Churchillian type can readily think of must be what the minor Powers can be compelled to part with in the form of territories, rights and interests, or even independence. Along with the advocacy of a return to secret diplomacy, the British press and officialdom have been recently criticizing the American Government for lack of "flexibility" in foreign policy. They say that the United States is too rigid and inflexible in the conduct of foreign relations and that there is too little of the spirit of give-and-take. By implication, this criticism should be understood to mean that the British Government knows exactly when and how to make concessions and what things to concede. The trouble is that the British diplomats and politicians know their trade too well, so that whatever concessions they make are made at the expense of somebody else instead of Britain herself.
The Soviet Government has laid down in its note of November 3 the conditions which the Western Powers must accept before it will consent to enter into negotiations for the settlement of outstanding disputes. One of those conditions is the admission of the puppet Peiping regime into the United Nations and its participation in a Five-Power Conference with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union. To accept this condition is to make a concession in favor of the Chinese Communist aggressor by allowing him to shoot his way into the United Nations, to make a mockery of the United Nations Charter, and to condemn the Chinese people to everlasting slavery. Churchill has unashamedly said all along that he is ready to welcome the Peiping regime into the United Nations with open arms. As there is not the slightest ambiguity on that point, it so much the more behooves the United States to show real leadership by refusing to compromise, on an issue in which principles of justice and decency are involved. If Churchill accuses the United States of inflexibility in foreign policy, why cannot the same accusation be turned against Churchill himself? Why, it may be asked, do the British call the American attitude inflexible when the United States refuses to recognize a. Russian satellite and permit it to enter the United Nations? And why, in the same breath, do they call their own attitude flexible when they insist with even more dogged determination on the seating of the Chinese Communist aggressor in the United Nations? The question of flexibility or inflexibility has nothing to do with the merits of the case for it refers merely to the degree of firmness with which a given attitude of mind is maintained. If the United States policy of barring the Chinese Communist aggressor from the United Nations is inflexible, so is the British policy of welcoming him into the world organization. If the British see so much virtue in flexibility and advise the United States to be less rigid in the conduct of foreign relations, why don't they themselves embrace the same virtue and show a little more flexibility on questions about which they come into sharp conflict with American policy?
Churchill's mind has been made up for a long time. He is determined to have his way. He wants the United States to follow his lead in this as ill other matters. If President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles let themselves be persuaded to accept a top-level conference with Malenkov, the would-be candidate for next year's Nobel Peace Prize: (if he lives that long to be a candidate) will go to "Moscow on all fours to pledge his friendship for the "great Malenkov" as he once did for the “great Stalin” at Yalta and to make a present of other people's interests" and rights and liberties and lives as an earnest of British sincerity and desire for "peace." Yes, there will be "peace," but it will be "peace" on Soviet terms and at the sacrifice of all the sacred principles which are the proud cultural heritage of East and West.
With an umbrella in hand, the ghost of the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain will be stalking the conference rooms at Bermuda from December 4 to 8. It will inspire Winston Churchill with new eloquence and beckon President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles to Munich. Were another Munich to take place in the next few months, the prospects of "Peace in our generation" would not be any brighter now than on the day when Chamberlain returned to London and made that historic announcement to the anxious crowd waiting to welcome him home.
Goodwill To Men
When this issue of the Review comes off the press, Christmas will be only three weeks away. It is the season when Christendom sings of "Peace on earth and goodwill to men." In the Chinese lore of yore, the New Year was made much of in about the same spirit as the Christians usually show at, Christmas time. Wayfarers usually hurried home to be in the midst of their families. For those who were kept abroad through the call of duty or merely inadvertently detained from joining their families at, their respective places of birth, the people among whom such persons dwelt took upon themselves die pleasurable obligation of showing special hospitality to the sojourners.
We have among us more than a thousand persons of alien nationality who have come to these shores in the line of duty. Many of them have their families with them, some of them may have left their families in other lands and not a few among them may still be bachelors in civil status. In this festive season more than at any other time of the year, we Chinese have obligations of hospitality towards these visitors. Such obligations exist throughout the year. Everyday, in sunshine or in rain, we Chinese are obliged so to conduct ourselves as to make the strangers living in our midst feel that they are among friends.
Such a sociable attitude had deep-rooted origins. Even in primitive society, the law of hospitality prevailed for all travelers. In the desert tents of Mongolia or Sahara, travelers would be given rug space nearest the fire. In the days when New England was not as thickly populated as it is today, there was the practice of bundling which, while serving other social ends, got its start from the principle of hospitality. In the very first paragraph of the Analects of Confucius, it was recorded that the sage asked rhetorically, "And, when you have friends coming to visit you from afar, aren't you happy?"
When it is remembered that these foreign friends have all braved the perils of the sea or hazards of the air for more than 10,000 li to come to our shores not because they have developed particular fancies for the balmy loveliness of our summer weather nor yet any special weakness for the artistic perfection of our performers at the Huan Chiu and other theaters, we cannot afford to be laggards in the performance of our duties as hosts. The law of normal social conduct demands it; Confucius taught it and even lowly self-interest dictates it.
The obligation of hospitality is imposed upon us as a state, as corporate bodies and as individuals. Our Government undertook to grant to these persons certain privileges and immunities as a mark of its hospitality. Whether or not the Government did rightly so grant is a matter to be discussed between the Government and our fellow citizens. It is not good form to speak of it with other parties. Whether or not such privileges and immunities have been rightly used on all occasions is a question that concern the Government and its guests. It would be, the most desirable social practice, should any of our fellow citizens feel constrained to unburden himself of his considered opinion and better judgment, to pass the same on to our Government. Citizens, as individuals and as corporate bodies, will find that such a venue of approach will not only invariably be in the best of taste, but will probably be the most effective.
One of our daily contemporaries wrote an editorial late in October pleading for care in the use of special privileges. The editorial did realize that "all the foreign personnel in Free China are our guests and friends." It has come to our attention that the article was, resented by some of its readers. The resentment was expressed in the form of a plea for mutual understanding, sympathy and charity. It was pointed out that we need to understand more comprehensively and thoroughly one another's problems, to be sympathetic to one another's difficulties and to be charitable of one another's weaknesses. No man and people can be perfect. When there is a common job to be done, let us focus our sight and concentrate our efforts on the job. Let us not detract from the effectiveness of our common effort through the diversion of attention to minor subjects. Let us be especially careful not to be critical of one another so as to avoid shifting our attention to ourselves.
Speaking of foreign personnel, our daily contemporary declared that "most of them are enjoying facilities of livelihood five or ten times better than the average Chinese people of equal social or educational standing." One of "them" asked in evident good humor, "Whose fault is that?”
While the question was put in a moment of humor, to us whose duty it is to find an answer, it gives substantial food for thought. The answer to the question is an occasion for introspection. A valiant attempt may be made to foist the responsibility on somebody else, but it will not be easy to convince other people s of the sincerity of our attitude.
Our humble view is that not only should we be careful not to expect one another to be perfect, not to be critical of one another, but we should lay greater emphasis on the positive criteria of better understanding of one another's problems, greater sympathy for one another's difficulties and some charity for one another's weaknesses. By concentrating our attention on our main problems, we shall be contributing to the earlier success of our common mission. By the better understanding of one another's problems, we shall have taken a long stride towards clearing the ground for the solution of the same problems. By showing greater sympathy for one another's difficulties, we shall then be blind to one another's foibles and develop a kind of emotional rapport. By the demonstration of some charity for one another's weaknesses, we shall be convincing one another that both the donor, and the recipient are human, that both are worshippers of the divine.
Understanding, sympathy and charity are not exclusively Christian virtues. In Saudi Arabia, Thailand, or Taiwan, the theological embellishments may vary in accordance with the jargon of its priesthood, but the core of the teaching will be found to be common. Love in Christianity has many of the attributes of Confucian kindliness (jen). It may be reasonably inferred that in Islam and Buddhism, love under some other label will be occupying a key position among human virtues. Understanding, sympathy and charity are but love watered down to suit given circumstances.
The Golden Rule in Christianity also has its counterpart in the teaching of Confucius. A corollary of the Golden Rule is that parable which advises people living in glass houses not to throw stones. We find it difficult to dodge the charge against our daily contemporary of its being lacking in graciousness in form and not sufficiently understanding, sympathetic and charitable in action. We shudder to think of the situation when "our spears are used to pierce our own shields."
Combatting Soviet Imperialism is not the work of one season, nor of one year. The least we can do in trying to improve our own strength and to gain more friends for our cause is to refrain from being too critical of our friends. Among friends, let us be understanding, sympathetic and charitable that our friends may be understanding, sympathetic and charitable towards us.
In this spirit, the Review has the pleasure to wish everyone of its readers "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year'"
The Ruler and the Ruled
The people will be easy to govern if their ruler conforms to the rules of prosperity.
From The Confucian Analects.
Speech and Conduct
The ancients were reserved in speech, for they were afraid their conduct might fail to come up to their professions.
From The Confucian Analects.