Friendship for the United States and fear of the malicious influence of so-called "China experts" have motivated 1,666 college professors and scholars of the Republic of China in writing and signing an open letter to the American people. The letter urges Americans to distinguish friend from foe and rejects the "containment without isolation" thesis that recently has been raised in connection with U.S. policy toward the Chinese Communists. "We can say with certainty," says the letter, "that the Chinese Communist regime is not only wholly un-Chinese and does not belong to the Chinese people but is also anti-Chinese altogether."
The open letter was published in Taiwan newspapers May 15 and immediately attracted widespread editorial and public discussion. It says the Chinese Communist regime "is an outgrowth of Soviet machinations" and cannot be "regarded as belonging to the Chinese people". Therefore, say the scholars, the anti-Americanism of the Chinese Communists does not reflect the thinking or the feelings of the Chinese people.
"Unfortunately," the letter continues, "these facts have been overlooked deliberately or otherwise by the so-called 'China experts' in the United States. Even more tragic is the fact that while the American people are pouring out their blood and money for the defense of Southeast Asia—the free world's last foothold in Asia—Professors John K. Fairbank and A. Doak Barnett, posing as 'China experts', have unleashed an organized propaganda campaign urging recognition of the anti-Chinese Peiping regime."
The letter sets forth seven detailed points to refute the "falsehoods spread by these so-called 'China experts' ":
—Maoism is not a modernization of China's old tradition.
—Communism is not an expression of Chinese nationalism.
—The American "experts" on China are brandishing supposed Chinese Communist economic and military strengths in an effort to intimidate the government and people of the United States.
—They ignore the numerous anti-Communist incidents on the Chinese mainland while overstressing the "existence" and "power" of the Chinese Communist regime.
—They offer the U.S. government the alternatives of war with the Chinese Communists or their recognition. This amounts to "defending the tiger's (Chinese Communists') right to devour one of their (the Americans') best friends (free China) in the futile hope that it won't eat again".
—"Containment without isolation" is self-contradictory. Without isolation, Peiping will be able to commit aggression wherever it chooses.
—Professors Fairbank and Barnett disagree on the probable direction of Chinese Communist policy after Mao Tse-tung's death. "Aren't the two professors rash in recommending a U.S. policy change even before they can reach a consensus of their own?" the letter asks.
At the time of its May 15 publication, the letter had been signed by 1,460 persons. Two hundred and six others subsequently affixed their signatures and still others are waiting to sign. The signatories include:
* Dr. Chien Shih-liang, president of the National Taiwan University.
* Dr. Li Chi, director of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
* Archbishop Paul Yupin, president of the Catholic Fujen University.
* Dr. Chiang Fu-tsung, director of the National Central Library and concurrently of the Sun Yat-sen Museum.
* Dr. Lee Shih-mou, secretary-general of the Atomic Energy Council.
* Dr. Tu Yuan-tsai, president of the Taiwan Provincial Normal University.
* Prof. Liu Chi-hung, president of the National Chengchi University.
* Ignatius Tsen-peng Pao, director of the National Historical Museum.
* Dr. Chen Ko-chung, president of National Tsinghua University.
* Dr. Andrew Lee, dean, Department of Law, Soochow University.
* Prof. Liang Shih-chiu of the Taiwan Provincial Normal University.
* Prof. Beauson Tseng of the National Taiwan University.
Signers also include a number of foreign scholars, professors, and religious leaders in Taiwan, among them the faculty members of the Catholic Fujen University.
Text of the open letter follows (also see "Why the China Scholars Are Wrong" by Prof. S. T. Tung on page 25):
* * * * *
We, the undersigned, all scholars and professors of free China, are addressing this open letter to the people of the United States, our traditional ally. At a time when you are threatened by the Chinese Communists, who are the enemy of the Chinese people, certain so-called "China experts" in your country have been misrepresenting the China situation and asking for a change in your China policy to accommodate the Chinese Communist regime. We believe we have a solemn obligation to make clear to you the real attitude of the Chinese people. We want to refute the erroneous arguments of these so-called experts and make some positive, constructive recommendations.
Friendly Relationship
You are the people of a great nation conceived in the spirit of the Enlightenment Movement in a new continent; and behold! we have before our very eyes the most spectacular of such experiments known to man! This modern enlightenment movement has close parallels with the cultural tradition of China. Both of our nations are God-fearing, humane, and peace-loving. Thus we are close in spirit although we are historically separate and although the vast Pacific Ocean lies between us. There exists among the two peoples very naturally sentiments of Americanophilism and Sinophilism.
Ever since China failed to retain her position as a leading nation during the 19th century, an era of power politics subjected her to the imperialism of Western European countries, Czarist Russia, Japan, and Soviet Russia. In the past century's humiliating record of Chinese foreign relations, only the United States—beginning with John Hay's "open door" policy—has consistently supported China's freedom and independence. To the elements of idealism and "enlightened self-interest" revealed then in the China policy of the United States may be traced the origin of American world policy as we find it now. In our country, the late Dr. Sun Yat-sen, Founding Father of our Republic, envisaged a new China "of the people, by the people, and for the people" in keeping with Abraham Lincoln's ideals. This philosophy of Dr. Sun's has been incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic of China. Moreover, during the past hundred years, statesmen, educators, and religious leaders of our two countries have made innumerable, outstanding contributions to Sino-American friendship—which came to be cemented during World War II by the blood of hundreds of thousands of young men of both countries. These historic facts will be long remembered by the Chinese people.
Important Questions
In the years following World War II, a tragedy without historic precedent was visited upon China even as she was prepared to cooperate with the United States in assuring peace in the Pacific region. The result is the emergence on the Chinese mainland of a Communist regime that has isolated itself from the free world and proclaimed the United States to be its sole "enemy". This regime sent troops to fight the United States in the Korean War, inflicting more than 130,000 casualties on American boys. And it is right now loudly clamoring day and night for the overthrow of what they label as "U.S. imperialists"!
How has this strange event come about? Does the Chinese Communist regime truly represent the Chinese people, as alleged in some of your newspapers, magazines, and other publications? What will be its eventual fate? What will be the shape of Sino-American relationship in the days ahead? These are all important questions deserving our serious consideration and dispassionate study.
It is impossible for us to answer all these questions in minutiae in this letter. But this much we can say with certainty: The Chinese Communist regime is not only wholly un-Chinese and does not belong to the Chinese people but is also anti-Chinese altogether. Far from being a product of the Chinese Revolution, the Communist regime in China was created amidst the postwar chaos through the intrigue and power politics of Soviet Russia. This should be evident to anyone familiar with the devastations suffered by China during her eight years of war with Japan. The Soviet Union, which with U.S. wartime assistance emerged as the most powerful country on the Eurasian continent, was allowed to occupy China's Northeast Provinces (Manchuria) under provisions of the secret Yalta Agreement. The Soviets armed the Chinese Communists with weapons seized from the Japanese and thus enabled them to challenge the rule of the Chinese National Government on the mainland. This is a well-known fact which has been admitted even by the Soviets themselves. It may be asked why did the Chinese Government fail to prevent the emergence of the Chinese Communist regime. We need only think of what postwar Western Europe would have been like without the Marshall Plan and the shield of NATO. Viewed in this light, the China tragedy should be attributed to the common failure of the free world. The Chinese Government is not the only party to blame. This is not to say that communization of the Chinese mainland was inevitable. The face of Asia would be entirely different today if the postwar United States had been far-sighted enough to foresee aggression in Korea, if it had not been plagued by so many so-called "China experts" misrepresenting the Chinese Communists as "agrarian reformers" and sowing Sino-American discord, and if it had used even a tenth of the amount of wealth and might expended by America on the Korean War to help China stop the Communists. This is a painful historic lesson that the people of both our countries must mark well.
Crimes of Mao
Because the Chinese Communist regime is an outgrowth of Soviet machinations, it can in no way be regarded as belonging to the Chinese people. So there is nothing strange about its anti-American attitude. The Soviets first proclaimed "war against U.S. imperialism" as early as the Fifth Congress of the Third International in July, 1924. In spite of that, the Chinese Communists would still not have become anti-American if they had been Chinese-oriented in their attitude. The truth is that they took their anti-American stand and entered the Korean War simply to carry out Moscow's policies. Consequently, to the Chinese people, the Chinese Communists' antagonism toward the United States is a cause for humiliation. We must, therefore, remind our American friends that it is not the Chinese people but the Chinese Communists who are antagonistic toward the United States. The Chinese Communists, steeped in cruelty, harm the Chinese people as viciously as they oppose the United States. The number of Chinese killed and wounded in the Korean War exceeded American casualties by ten to one. We must hold Stalin and Mao Tse-tung responsible for these horrible crimes.
Some people may ask: Why have the Chinese Communists become more violent in their hostility toward the United States than the Russian Communists now that there is the Peiping-Moscow split? The reasons are simple: First, Mao's party has been wholly Stalinized, and has adhered to the Stalinist orthodoxy even after the Kremlin's destalinization. This is the basic cause of the Chinese Communist break with the Kremlin. Though the Chinese Communists' relationship with the Russian Communists has undergone a change, their enmity for the Chinese people remains unchanged. Their political experience as a whole has been Stalinism and nothing else. Second, what Mao's dictatorial regime considers to be of the greatest importance is to maintain political power at home and to pursue its goals of world conquest abroad. Thus on the one hand, it has to create international tensions and to undertake military aggression so as to tighten its stranglehold on the people at home and also to divert their attention from their own suffering. On the other hand, it attempts to subvert Southeast Asian nations so as to intimidate the United States, its most formidable opponent, into pulling out of the whole of Asia.
So-Called Experts
Unfortunately, these facts have been overlooked deliberately or otherwise by the so-called "China experts" in the United States. They have purposely misrepresented the Chinese Communist regime as "China", thus confusing the public about the constituency of real China. Even more tragic is the fact that while the American people are pouring out their blood and money for the defense of Southeast Asia-the free world's last foothold in Asia-Professors John K. Fairbank and A. Doak Barnett, posing as "China experts", have unleashed an organized propaganda campaign urging recognition of the anti-Chinese Peiping regime. In so doing they are actually encouraging that regime to commit more diabolical crimes against the Chinese people as well as against the United States. Since Fairbank and Barnett have spoken out in their false capacity as "China experts", we, the scholars and professors of free China, feel obliged to refute them.
Our refutation of the falsehoods spread by these so-called "China experts" may be summarized in seven points:
1. Mao Tse-tungism is distorted by these "experts" into something representative of a "modernized extension of the venerable tradition of China". The true Chinese tradition has, since time immemorial, consisted of: love for one's kith and kin; honor for the wise and good; charity for man, and kindness to animals; the virtues of propriety, humility, loyalty, and sympathy; and the pursuit of universal peace and world-wide commonwealth. None of these virtues is compatible with the attempts of the Chinese Communists to destroy family love, instigate mutual hate and class struggle, and disrupt ethical human relationships. In alleging that the Chinese Communist is heir to the Chinese orthodox tradition, Prof. Fairbank betrays his ignorance of both the Chinese way of life and Communism. Like any other nation, China has her own tradition. But it could be equated neither with Communism nor with Maoism. In short, the latter is a Soviet-sponsored, anti-Chinese monstrosity that seeks total destruction of the Chinese tradition. The United States has no lack of Sinologists, many of whom have been to China. Can any of them find in real Chinese tradition even a shred of Stalinism or such Communist manifestations as: "brainwashing", "liquidation of a father by the son", "betrayal of friends", "slave-labor camps" or "people's communes"? China was once a great stabilizing force in Asia, because she pursued a benevolent tradition of befriending its neighbors. Anti-Americanism is wholly contrary to this tradition. In his distortion of China's tradition in an attempt to glorify the Chinese Communists, Prof. Fairbank singled out Lin Piao's war-mongering article on the "people's revolutionary war", which contains these passages:
"Everything is divisible. And so is this colossus of U.S. imperialism. It can be split and defeated. The peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and other regions can destroy it piece by piece, some striking at its head and others at its feet. That is why the greatest fear of U.S. imperialism is that people's wars will be launched in different parts of the world, and particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and why it regards people's war as a mortal danger."
"Vietnam is the most convincing current example of a victim of aggression defeating U.S. imperialism by a people's war. The United States has made South Vietnam a testing ground for the suppression of people's war. It has carried on this experiment for many years, and everybody can now see that the U.S. aggressors are unable to find a way of coping with people's war. On the other hand, the Vietnamese people have brought the power of people's war into full play in their struggle against the U.S. aggressors. The U.S. aggressors are in danger of being swamped in the people's war in Vietnam ... The people in other parts of the world will see still more clearly that U.S. imperialism can be defeated, and that what the Vietnamese people can do, they can do too."
Sheer Propaganda
Such fanatic anti-U.S. outbursts are propaganda attempts to instigate the people of the world (including Americans) to oppose the United States and assure the triumph of the socialist cause. How can anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of Chinese history and who is intellectually honest agree with Prof. Fairbank in accepting Lin Piao's thesis as representative of the tradition of the Confucian ideal and practice of "government based on moral virtues"? How can the traditional Confucian concepts of benevolence and love, harmony and peace, courtesy and modesty, and universal brotherhood be equated with attempts at provoking hatred and war?
2. The second argument of Professors Fairbank and Barnett is that Chinese Communism is an expression of nationalism, a reaction against the humiliations and reverses China has suffered in recent times. As we know, Communism originated in the West and first developed in Russia. Lenin took advantage of the clash between Eastern nationalism and Western imperialism to smuggle in Communism through infiltration as a stratagem. Communism may deceive Eastern nationalism for a time, but such nationalism sooner or later must divest itself of Communism. Attesting to this rule are events in Turkey, in the China of 1925-27, and more recently in Indonesia and the African nations. Even today, Professors Fairbank and Barnett still refuse to face the turn of events in Africa or to appreciate their significance. Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who tutored modern China in nationalism, repeatedly pointed out that nationalism—unlike isolationism or anti-foreignism—should logically play a leading role in the preservation of international peace. Time and again, Dr. Sun said that Chinese nationalism should follow the example of that of the United States, and that China, when she had achieved power, should not imitate decadent imperialist behavior. As a matter of fact, the situation in Asia as a whole began to change after World War I. Chinese nationalism rose in self-defense against Japanese and Russian expansionism. Very naturally, China drew closer to the West and Dr. Sun advocated economic cooperation between China and the Western nations as a goal of Chinese nationalist endeavors. The United States has never encroached upon any Chinese territory. The Chinese, therefore, have always regarded the United States as a special friend. All the anti-American views one hears nowadays have been invented and inflamed by the Communists and disseminated by their ubiquitous propaganda mills.
Millions Against Reds
"Now Senators—I Have Prepared A Chart". (File photo)
3. Third, the two above-mentioned American professors brandish the supposed Chinese Communist economic and military strengths in an effort to intimidate the government and people of the United States. Unquestionably China is a vast country with an immense population. But the Chinese Communists do not represent the Chinese people. The 600 million Chinese people are not an asset to the Chinese Communists. Instead, the people actually represent the strength that will eventually bury the Chinese Communists. Furthermore, in talking about economic developments under the Chinese Communists, one should always beware of their fabricated reports. At a 1959 conference at Lu-shan, for example, the Chinese Communists them selves openly admitted that their statistics had been exaggerated by from 50 to 58 per cent. Yet their figures have never been questioned by Professors Fairbank and Barnett whenever they discuss matters of economy on the Communist-held mainland. It is true that the Chinese Communists have test-exploded three nuclear devices already. These blasts are certainly warning signals. But Hitler's V1s and V2s did not give him a victory nor frighten the free world into appeasement. Nor need we conduct ourselves before Mao Tse-tung's atomic tests as if there were nothing else for us to do except to tremble and cower.
4. Our fourth point concerns the representations of Professors Fairbank and Barnett regarding what they refer to as "fact" or "reality". They say the very "existence" and "power" of the Chinese Communist regime are facts. They also consider the Communist "hatred" of the United States as a fact. Who knows how many foolish acts and how much evil have resulted in mistaking fancies for "facts" and "reality", to say nothing of deliberate misrepresentation of them. When Hitler was boasting of his power, Neville Chamberlain and Colonel Charles Lindbergh argued that "facts and reality" must be acknowledged. But the refusal of Churchill and Roosevelt to do so saved the world. The "realists" of today are disregarding the reality of the anti Communist and anti-tyranny struggle of the people on the Chinese mainland. These "realists" do not entirely deny the existence of these phenomena. For instance, Prof. Barnett says there is "no significant organized opposition and no prospect of its developing". So the "realists" conclude that the Peiping regime is not a transient phenomenon. They turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the constant increase in the number of facts contrary to their thesis, such as the numerous anti-Communist incidents on the Chinese mainland (249,012 in 1961 versus 56,000 in 1955, according to the Chinese Communist "Ministry of Public Security"), the open rebellion of the intellectuals against the Communists (such anti-Communist activities being carried out in the name of Chinese tradition), the escape to freedom of thousands upon thousands of youths, and the defection of many Communist military officers and diplomats. A single swallow does not signal the arrival of spring. But when more swallows return, spring cannot be far away; one certainly cannot deny that winter is now but a passing phase. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, how can Prof. Barnett say that the Chinese Communists are here to stay?
Freedom of Choice
5. Professors Fairbank and Barnett intimidate peace-loving Americans with the specter of war. They have published in the American press what they call a choice between fighting the Chinese Communists and recognizing them. What they mean to say is that war is dangerous and that "recognition" is a panacea. And they argue that the responsibility of making the fateful choice falls on the United States. But how can the Chinese Communists, who, according to Prof. Fairbank, are heirs to Confucianism and therefore "advocate government by moral virtues", coerce the United States into recognizing their regime by threatening war? What right do they have? Doesn't the United States have freedom of choice in extending diplomatic recognition to any particular regime? Prof. Fairbank has developed a thesis of "hungry tigers" and maintains that the Peiping regime is neither a paper tiger nor a bad tiger, only a hungry one, which loses its temper when frustrated or irritated by the United States. He says that when this pet of his is patted and well fed, it will regain its Confucian virtues. Friends: Such are the views of these "China experts". They dumbfound us. In plain English, they are defending the tiger's right to devour one of their best friends in the futile hope that it won't want to eat again!
6. The panacea of these "experts" is "containment without isolation", which contains the following five actions:
(a) Revision of the U.S. policy toward Peiping on a basis of "containment without isolation": This, however, is self-contradiction. If the regime is not isolated, it can carry out subversive activities as it wishes. Containment then will become impossible. In that event, not only the free world position in Southeast Asia will become untenable but also defeat will not be confined to Vietnam. All of Asia may be lost to the Communists and another Pearl Harbor will be in the offing. These American "experts" say that this formula of "containment without isolation" has proved effective in dealing with Soviet Russia, but they forget that whatever compromises Moscow has made should be attributed to the position of strength the United States has taken. On the other hand, it was American aid to Russia during World War II, designed to keep the Soviets from becoming isolated, that made possible Stalin's megalomaniacal aggression. If Soviet Russia had been both contained and isolated at all times, the world would have been saved much agony.
Pampering A Tiger
(b) Admission of the Peiping regime into the United Nations: These American "experts" strongly advocate a seat in the United Nations for the Chinese Communists, even though Peiping has sworn to destroy that international organization. Peiping's admission would violate both the letter and the spirit of the U.N. Charter. Furthermore, should the Chinese Communists gain entry to the United Nations, they will endeavor to carry out large-scale subversive activities in the United States. These undertakings will be more dangerous than Russia's espionage. How will the United States deal with such a situation? These "experts" are cynically suggesting that the U.N. seat of the Republic of China should be preserved. But in reality they are trying to deal a severe blow to the cause of free China. They propose to feed and pamper a hungry tiger, apparently not aware that the tiger may swallow up Asia and then subject the United States to a sneak attack.
(c) Abolition of the trade embargo against the Chinese Communists and acceptance of their participation in nuclear controls: If isolation of the Chinese Communists were to end, the trade embargo imposed against the Chinese mainland would have to be lifted. This would be tantamount to helping the enemy by replenishing his food stocks. The free world would be shipping materials to the Chinese Communists who can use them to kilt more American soldiers on the Vietnam front. The Chinese Communists are already using to great advantage their nuclear capability for purposes of blackmail. Why should they accept international nuclear supervision? Even if they should pretend to accept control, they will certainly continue to develop their atomic arsenal in secret and wilt use it to threaten the free world whenever they choose.
Threat to America
(d) Progression from de facto to de jure recognition: These American "experts" are asking the United States to kneel penitently and give formal diplomatic recognition to a regime that has been branded as an aggressor by the United Nations and that has been responsible for the murder of Americans in Korea and Vietnam. Such a proposal is a violation of righteousness and justice, and a breach of faith with thousands upon thousands of Americans who have heroically sacrificed their lives for freedom.
(e) Permitting Chinese Communist reporters and scholars to visit the United States:
In order to establish relations with the Chinese Communists, these "experts" have succeeded in persuading the U.S. government to permit Chinese Communist reporters and scholars to visit the United States. The Chinese Communists contemptuously refused. The Peiping for lunch," she said. It was true she had an appetite like a water buffalo—probably to replenish those big hands and feet.
The beginning of the end came with our move to the new house. Spring rains had made the lane of Hsin-yi Lu almost impassable. The house agent found a much better place on a paved street and we moved in. Everything went welt until I showed Sookie her quarters. This time I was not going to be an easy mark. There were two detached amah's rooms and that was where Sookie was going to stay—using her own bathing facilities, too. I wanted my bathroom and my privacy. To comfort Sookie a little, I had bought her handsome wardrobe and installed it in her new quarters. She wasn't impressed. When I showed her the rooms, praising them to the skies, she balked.
"Sookie no like," she said. "Sookie stay in house like before. Much better."
"No," I said. "We are going to have many house guests from Tokyo and Hongkong and other places. You can't stay in the big house any longer."
Five minutes later the sabotage started. As the unpacking began, a quart bottle of cooking oil was smashed on the dining room floor. The stain is still there. In the next few days we went through a small set of dishes and I had to buy new glasses. Then Sookie decided that the house was too big for her, and that we needed another amah. When I disagreed, her mother developed a serious illness, and Sookie took off. She was gone 10 days and returned with a girl friend.
"Friend come help Sookie," she told me. I explained that we were not going to employ anyone else. She took it better than might have been expected. "All right," she said, "but people next door need amah. You tell them about my girl friend, please." So I did, and fell to talking with my neighbor. It turned out that they had just hired a girl. So there was no vacancy. When I returned to my own house, Sookie and her girl friend—another stunner—were sitting in the dining room drinking cokes and eating pastry. She had been gone two weeks and the house wasn't exactly a model of cleanliness and neatness.
"Sookie," I said, "maybe you had better find another job." I think she was relieved. In fact, I am pretty sure that she came back merely to weedle me out of two months' dismissal pay, her bedding, and some other gifts. She cried a little, and then, happy as a little girl, she disappeared in a red taxi, bound for the headquarters of the amah tong, I guess. She came back a few times, and for the first couple of Christmases I had a gift for her under the tree. But I haven't seen her for three years now. Maybe she got married and has started having the babies she loves so much. I hope so. We had our differences, but Sookie had a mind of her own. She was not a cipher. My next amah was a woman in her 40s, efficient and hard-working. She served long and faithfully until she had to go home to take care of her own family. The present girl is a hard worker who now takes care of three people, does all the washing, and some of the cooking, and who likes her living quarters and her two days off a month. We pay her well by local standards and she is a good amah.
But I miss Sookie, her impishness and her stubborn determination to have her own way. Somewhere in Taiwan there is a dustless house and lots of hot water for bathing every night. I hope she's leading a good life there.
-----------------------------------------
The Chinese say: Chi niu chao ma—to ride an ox to find a horse or to accept an unsatisfactory situation as a stepping-stone to something better.