The celebration of the birthday of the Republic of China affords a good occasion to take stock. It would be wise for us to pause for a moment to consider the events of the past and the prospects for the future. We would want furthermore to know in what way the past and future of China are tied to the past and future of the United States.
Those of us here who are citizens of the Republic of China have naturally an all-absorbing interest in our fatherland. The many American friends who have joined us in the celebration of this national day have manifested a concern for the welfare of China which has been a source of inspiration and encouragement to us. I feel therefore that rhetoric is out of place and that a celebration in the style of the American July Fourth is not entirely suitable for this occasion.
The Father of the Republic of China is of course Dr. Sun Yat-sen. From 1894 on, Dr. Sun stood for a republic in place of the monarchy, in spite of opposition from both domestic and foreign quarters and from high and low classes in China. On this point contemporary impression coincides with historical fact. There can be no doubt that Dr, Sun's championship of republicanism, influenced largely by the example of the United States, led to the birth of the Republic of China.
However, we must not over-simplify history. Before 1911, Dr. Sun lived the life of an exile. His speeches and writings were banned by the Imperial Government of that time. Aside from those Chinese who lived along the coast, particularly in foreign settlements and Hongkong, the vast majority of the Chinese people in 1911 did not know the details of the revolutionary platform of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. The Republic, as established in 1911, did not follow entirely his teachings.
The Constitution, which went into effect in 1912 with the inauguration of Yuan Shih-kai as the first President of China, was a 19th Century liberal constitution. It accepted the American theory of the separation of powers. No political leader at that time, with the exception of Dr. Sun, had any economic program and Dr. Sun's economic program was not accepted by the majority of the politicians. The fact of the matter is: the generation which brought about the establishment of the Republic was nourished on certain selected passages of Chinese classics which argued or seemed to argue for the sovereignty of the people. In addition, that generation was nourished on translations and popularizations of Montesquieu, Rousseau and Jefferson. Patrick Henry's revolutionary speeches and Mme. Roland's dicta found wide currency in China then. It is needless for me to say that Dr. Sun Yat-sen's own thinking had surpassed the limits of 18th Century enlightenment and 19th Century liberalism.
With the establishment of the Republic, an unexpected problem emerged, namely, the problem of maintaining national unity. A few rare spirits had foreseen that problem but most people did not realize that the institution of monarchy was historically an important instrument in the unification of China. The monarchy once out of the way, the militarists sprang up like mushrooms. With their personal armies, they divided and fought over China.
The period between 1911 and 1925, although very bleak in the political field, was not without solid achievements for the Chinese people. It was the period when the intellectual renaissance took place. Dr. Hu Shih, the father of that movement, is with us tonight. Without any wish to flatter him I must say that Dr. Hu Shih inaugurated a new way of intellectual and literary life in China, which broke down medieval shackles on the spirit of the Chinese people, and set it free.
In addition to, the renaissance movement, or rather as a part of that movement, the Chinese students educated in American and Western European universities began to return in considerable number between 1911 and 1925. They had been trained in diverse fields. Those trained in the humanities found a field for immediate usefulness as fighters in Dr. Hu Shih's army of intellectual and literary revolutionists. Others, trained in agriculture, engineering, banking, transportation, irrigation, found scanty opportunity for immediate employment. They bided their time and thought over the problem, of applying Western natural science and technology to Chinese society. For them it was a period of incubation.
From 1925 on we had the Nationalist Revolution, led by the Kuomintang and its chief, President Chiang Kai-shek. This period is of course President Chiang's period.
In domestic affairs this period is notable for the fact that Western-trained students found for the first time an opportunity in various fields for the full use of their newly-acquired knowledge and skill. Mr. Lo Chia-lun, a Columbia man, and Mr. Y. C. Mei, a Worcester Tech. man, became successively the president of Tsinghua University. Dr. Chiapg Monlin, a California and Columbia man, became the active head of Peking University. Dr. J. Heng Liu, a Harvard Medical man, became the first Minister of Health. I should add that that was the first time in the history of China that the Government concerned itself with the health of the people. Mr. Hsieh Chia-sheng (K. S. Sie), Dr. Shen Tsung-han, and Mr. Chien Tien-ho, trained in Cornell, Wisconsin and California, pooled their abilities to establish the Central Agricultural Research Institute. That Institute experimented with rice and wheat and established for the Chinese farmer new and improved varieties which increased the yield by ten to twelve per cent. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call the attention of this audience to the fact that the contributions of the Central Agricultural Research Institute to Chinese agriculture were the first contributions made by the intellectual class to the millions and millions of farmers in China in the last one thousand years.
In the thirties there was hope in China. Actual progress was being made in education, in government administration, in transportation, in agriculture and in public health.
As China progressed under the leadership of President Chiang Kai-shek, two external enemies appeared. One was Japan. The Japanese militarists reasoned it out that the unification and modernization of China was against Japan's interests. They unleashed their aggressive war on China.
The other external enemy was world communism. The Kremlin reasoned it out that China's unification and modernization could only be permitted on the basis of communism. There was a time between 1923 and 1927 when the Kremlin thought that world communism could climb on the bandwagon of Chinese nationalism and sneak into the driver's seat. That attempt failed. China, as led by President Chiang Kai-shek, refused to be a colony or semi-colony of Soviet Russia. Chinese nationalism wished to get rid of the unequal treaties and to emancipate China from foreign imperialistic encroachments. But Chinese nationalism as taught by Dr. Sun and interpreted by President Chiang stood for cooperation with the West, on terms of equality. That was the reason why China, while pressing for the abolition of the unequal treaties and recovery of foreign settlements and leaseholds, simultaneously increased economic and cultural relations with the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Czechoslovakia and France. This type of nationalism was not to Moscow's liking. And Moscow has since 1927 continued to make war on Chinese nationalism, a war that has lasted a quarter of a century.
Mr. Chairman, mark my words. Moscow is showing sympathy to nationalism in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The game played there is the same as the game that Moscow tried to play in China between 1923 and 1927. The aim is also the same: to pervert Asian nationalism for serving the purposes of world communism.
These two enemies, Japan first and then Soviet Russia, brought the Republic of China to its present plight. The present is dark. The difficulties are enormous. But speaking for myself I have no doubt that in the long run the Chinese people have a rich and bright future.
I do not look for the salvation of China in the direction of Titoism. I see no possibilities of Titoism. Ideologically Moscow and Peiping are identical. Practically, Moscow and Peiping have formed a partnership in world revolution and world domination. In Stalin's eyes, world revolution and world empire are the same thing. In fact they are the same thing. When this partnership is as prosperous as it is, there is no reason why the senior and junior partners should part company. Do not forget that China was at several periods of her history imperialist. Russia has had conqueror-tsars. China has had conqueror-emperors. I do not need to resort to Chinese history. Those who know the history of Korea, Indo-China, Burma and Central Asia know the periods when Chinese armies brought those lands under Chinese domination. Today, that expansion can be repeated, under the new and deceiving name of liberation.
I do not say that a split between Peiping and Moscow will never come. I can visualize the day when this empire-building will have proceeded far enough to call for a division of spoils. The problem of the division of spoils may bring about a break, but not before then.
We must also remember that Manchuria, the most important region of all Asia, is today only nominally under Chinese Communist rule but factually under Soviet Russian control. We must also remember that there are 50 thousand Soviet military, political and technical advisers scattered all over China. We must furthermore remember that Moscow has seen to it that fervent pro-Soviet stooges occupy key positions in political and economic fields. Stalin has already on his hands one Tito. He finds that one too many. You can be sure that he will take care not to allow a second Tito to appear. I do not, I repeat, look for the salvation of China in the direction of Titoism.
Neither do I look for the salvation of China in the direction of a Third World War. China participated in World War I and World War II. We found the fruits of such participation in world wars only too bitter.
We have on the mainland of China 450 million people eager to overthrow the yoke of communist tyranny and terror. The farmers and workers, supposed to be the beneficiaries of the communist revolution, today find themselves reduced to slavery.
We have on the island of Formosa eight million free Chinese, willing and eager to fight for their country and their brethren on the mainland.
We have eleven million overseas Chinese scattered in Southeast Asia and North and South America. They contributed mightily to the success of the revolution of 1911. They are ready to contribute once more to the emancipation of their fatherland.
We Chinese will shed our blood to fight for the national freedom and independence of China and for the human freedom and dignity of 450 million Chinese people. We need some help from you. I can say that the investment that we hope you will make in China will be only a fraction of your investment in Western Europe or Korea.
Mr. Chairman, these are the grounds on which I base my faith that the Chinese people have before them a rich and bright future after this immediate period of darkness.
***Text of a speech delivered at the China Institute Double Tenth dinner held in Waldorf Astoria Hotel on 9th October, 1952.