The Communist challenge in China is the one and same challenge with which the entire free world is confronted today: The Communist Party in Red China, like the Communist parties' elsewhere, probably with the dubious exception of Yugoslavia, owes allegiance to Soviet Russia and serves the monolithic cause of world Communism. It is not Chinese in origin, nor Chinese in character. It owes its founding, its growth and its success· to the initiative and the support given by Soviet Russia.
In fact, it is not necessary for the American people to look to Asia or to Eastern Europe to realize the danger of Communism. Here in this country you also have a Communist Party, which, in its professed aims and subversive activity, is clearly working to promote the plans and activities of the Soviet Union. John Gates, former editor of the Daily Worker, who broke with the Communist Party in the United States in 1957 after having been a member for 28 years, states in an article published in March, 1958, that the Party "was conceived from abroad, based on principles devised by Lenin, and modeled after the only successful party of Socialism up to that time, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union."
In December 1930, William Z. Foster, veteran theorist and strategist of the Party, when testifying before a Congressional Committee, admitted that "the workers of this country and the workers of every country have only one flag and that is the Red flag.... "
The Communist Party in the United States is by no means the only organization, which propagates Communism here. In a report published in January this year by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives and entitled "Pat terns of Communist Espionage," we are told how the Soviet Embassy in Washington has operated as an agent of subversion. In the foreword of that report, there appears this challenge:
"May those who accept at face value the pretense of 'peaceful coexistence' with the masters of international communism justify, if they will, the deceit, intrigue, blackmail, espionage, subversion, and mass murder which characterizes the program of communism for no less than complete world domination."
Communism in Asia today has been imposed upon one-fourth of the world's population. By far its most important gain has been in China. China has always been a magnet or a target for predators seeking political or economic domination in Asia. China may serve the cause of peace or the cause of war, depending on the type of leadership that exists in that country. The pivotal importance of China in world affairs was recognized by the great American Secretary of State John Hay, who proposed in 1898 the so-called "open door policy" for China. He fully realized that if China should lose its independence and fall under the sphere of influence of one or more foreign Powers, it would become a battleground of international clashes and contentions. About 20 years after John Hay's proposal, Lenin said that the way to London and Paris is through Peking and Calcutta. All this shows that unless there is a stable, free and democratic China, there cannot be a free and stable Asia, and with the Asian continent in turmoil, as it is today, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the rest of the world to live in isolated peace.
The fall of the Chinese mainland into Communist hands in 1949 has vastly strengthened Soviet Russia's position as a world Power. It has further precipitated the spear-heading of Communism into other parts of Asia as well as into the Middle East. But for it, Russia would not have been able to concentrate the major portion of its military capability in Europe. Its threat to Europe and to the West as a whole would have been much less than it has been since the fall of the Chinese mainland into Communist hands.
As the situation now stands, Communist China, while still relying heavily on Soviet Russia for military and economic aid, is effectively fulfilling the function of a Soviet tool in Asia. Chinese Communist armies fought in Korea against the United Nations forces. Chinese Communist military personnel helped train and direct Ho Chi Minh's armies in North Vietnam. Chinese Communists are infiltrating into Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaya, Singapore and Burma, not to mention India. In the Philippines, only' through forthright actions did the Government manage to halt Communist armed attempts at infiltration and subversion. In short, the Chinese Communist regime has been so much an integral part of the Communist bloc that it would be sheer wishful thinking to expect it to turn Titoist or to take a position less hostile to the free world. In fact, there never has been a moment when it was politically possible to win over the Chinese Communists, or to induce them to take a less intransigent stand against the free world.
In recent months, there have been two trends of thought on the Chinese Communist problem in this country, and these I propose to examine briefly. Some people are so impressed by the "massive achievements" of the' "people's communes" that they have come to embrace the view that, in perhaps 15 or 20 years, Communist China will become a great industrial power, surpassing even Soviet Russia or the United States in production. These people are awed into thinking that, without the participation of Communist China, it would not be possible to reach any satisfactory settlement of world problems. Others are led to think that as Communist China becomes more industrialized, it will have need of vast quantities of capital machinery and machine tools. To their way of thinking, the absence of diplomatic relations with Communist China is depriving countries like the United States of opportunities to trade in a "vast market."
Let us recall the state of affairs in Soviet Russia that existed in the late twenties when it launched its first five-year plan. Its avowed purpose was to catch up with and surpass the Western, especially the American, economy. After 30-odd years of forced industrialization emphasizing principally heavy defense industries at the neglect of welfare and consumer demands, Russian economy remains today in a state of continual crisis. For there are built-in obstacles, bottlenecks and weaknesses in the Communist economic system that prevent it from serving the needs and interests of the people as such. Waste, stifling of initiatives, gross inefficiency and over-centralization have not been successfully corrected. Efforts to rectify them have often been the causes of political upheavals and economic dislocation. There is no doubt that Russian productivity in heavy, particularly in the manufacturing of tools of war, has risen tremendously in the last 30 years. But even there, it is still behind the general level of Western nations.
Taking Soviet Russia as a yardstick, it is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that the Chinese Communists could achieve a high degree of industrialization in a short span of a few years. To be sure, the Communist regime has initiated a prodigious program of industrial development and is obviously resorting to extreme measures in its efforts to carry it out. But the entire program, which stems from political motivation, is unsound and unbalanced from the economic point of view. Thus, while the Communists claim to have attained the goal of 12-million tons of iron and steel production last year, every household on the Chinese mainland was at the same time stripped of practically everything made of iron or steel, from iron gates to utensils, from pocket knives to garden tools. What is even more serious than this overemphasis on industrial output is the fact that agricultural production has because of it been neglected. In spite of the gains in farm production claimed by the Communists, the fact remains that, by the end of 1957, the last year of the first five-year plan, the per capita food consumption on the Chinese mainland was actually about 14 per cent lower than in 1933—I repeat, 1933. I quote this figure from a report submitted to the American Economic Association last December by Professor Liu Ta-chung of Cornell University, an expert on Chinese Communist economy. It may sound startling or even unbelievable in the midst of Communist propaganda to the contrary. But confirmation is not difficult to find. Ask any refugee fleeing the Chinese mainland whether he and his neighbors there had enough to eat.
The whole economic structure of mainland China under Communist rule is built upon a ruthless network of controls and regimentation. The Chinese Communists have in many respects actually improved upon the Russian methods of reducing the individual to the status of abject slavery. Admittedly, slave labor is capable of achieving tremendous economic results. But those must be achieved in a most uneconomical manner, particularly in terms of human suffering and sacrifices. And there is always a breaking point where even slaves will revolt. In spite of their claims of success in the commune system, Chinese Communist leaders have found it necessary to slow down on its enforcement and particularly to refrain temporarily from imposing it in the urban areas. Even the Communists have to admit, that owing to "ignorance and bad judgment on the part of many cadres the system had developed many flaws," that there is growing inefficiency in many areas, and that there have been hundreds of cases of sabotage and disobedience.
With reference again to the question of trade, I would like to say this. For political reasons, by far the greater: proportion, about 70 to 80 per cent, of Communist China's trade is committed to Soviet Russia and other Communist bloc countries. Under the kind of economic assistance agreements Peiping has concluded with the Soviet Union, more and more of mainland China's exportable products will have to be shipped to Russia for servicing the loans and paying for capital goods acquired. The Peiping regime purchases from non-Communist countries only for political purposes, or when certain capital goods are not available from Russia or the satellite countries. It is a well-known fact that Communist China has been using trade with non-Communist countries largely as a political bait for recognition or as a wedge to engage in subversion. The best example is found in its trade with Japan.
In a three-hour discussion of Japanese-Communist China relations on March 14 in Peiping with a Japanese Socialist Party delegate, Chou En-lai asserted, "politics and economic problems cannot be regarded separately." There was clear indication in Chou's remarks that unless Japan became less anti-Communist or at least neutral, its hope for trade with the Chinese mainland would not materialize.
What Chou asked for from Japan will certainly apply to the United States. Ever since the Chinese Communists occupied the mainland, they have whipped up among the masses a frenzied "hate-America" movement. In the preamble of Communist China's constitution, anti-American-imperialism was made a necessary step towards the final goal of Communism. If the United States should decide to emphasize trade with Communist China, it would have to extend to it diplomatic recognition.
It is true that some countries are trading with Communist China without having given it recognition. These countries are, in effect, strengthening the economy and the military potential of Communist China. Whether or not the United States should recognize Communist China is a matter of policy for the United States Government, but it is one with which my Government is intimately concerned. It is my personal view that, apart from other vital reasons which the United States Government has no doubt taken into consideration, the United States would suffer irreparable loss of prestige as the leader of the free world if it should accord recognition to the Peiping regime. It would be a severe blow to the anti- Communist effort throughout the world, particularly behind the Iron Curtain. It may be argued that no harm can be done if trade were confined to non-strategic materials. But, as you all know, the distinction between strategic and non-strategic goods in these days of highly developed chemical engineering is negligible. Furthermore, even non-strategic materials can be put to military use. In short, more trade wid. Communist China would not only bolster its general economy but would definitely increase its war potential.
Taking into consideration Communist China's capabilities in the export field and its desires in the import field, trade with Communist China by the United States could not in the near future become extensive. None of the countries that have recognized Communist China in expectation of profiting substantially in the field of trade has found its expectations realized.
It is clear that the Chinese Communist challenge can only be met effectively by first denying it facilities for consolidation and expansion. Since the Chinese Communists took over the mainland in 1949, they have been plagued by opposition in all parts of the country, including the outlying regions of Tibet and Sinkiang. This is testified to by the number of people the Communist regime has had to liquidate, and by the increasing ruthlessness with which the dissident elements have been and are dealt with.
In January 1958, Lo jui-ching, chief of the Chinese Communist secret police, admitted in a published report that in the preceding two years his men had found it necessary to investigate 18,000,000 workers for "counter-revolutionary" thinking, had smashed 3,000 "reactionary" groups, and had uncovered 100,000 "active counter-revolutionaries" - of whom 5,000 were members of the Communist Party itself. On a daily basis, this means that during 1956 and 1957 among workers alone, there were more than 25,000 anti-Communist cases investigated each day. Arrests of active anti-Communists averaged about 140 a day.
Such being the situation, the Chinese Communists certainly can lay no claim to popular support. But nothing, in reality, would better serve to enhance the prestige of the Peiping regime in the eyes of the people over whom it seeks to rule than recognition of it by the United States. From the point of view of free Chinese the world over, there could be nothing more detrimental to the cause of freedom in Asia than for the United States as the leader of the free world to extend recognition to Communist China.
The view is held by some people that admission of Red China into the United Nations and recognition of it by the United States would greatly ease world tension. That contention is not soundly based. The fact that the free world cannot defeat Communism next week or next month does not mean that any nation should seek to compromise with it. Recent events have proved that resistance to it provides the best insurance against Communist miscalculations that may lead to a world war. The Communists are looking for easy gains without having to fight for them. It is my considered view that, in dealing with the Communists in any part of the world, the best way to prevent a wider conflict is for all free peoples to stand firm. In fact, it is the only way by which to diminish the chance 0 f another global war.
Last August when the Chinese Communists started intensive shelling of the island of Quemoy, a section of public opinion in this country clamored for the evacuation of the island for fear that if my Government insisted on defending it, that effort would bring about a wider conflict involving the United States and Soviet Russia. Subsequent events have proved that this fear was not justified. It is precisely the persistent manifestation of this kind of fear that invites further Communist aggression.
Today we are confronted with the problem of Berlin. There is again much talk of disengagement, of creating some kind of a demilitarized zone between East and West Germany, and of thinning out the allied forces in that area as a means of reducing the possibility of armed conflict. All these recipes for peace are based on the assumption that the free world has been the cause of unrest or conflict, whereas the plain truth is that it is the Communists who have created the tensions, which threaten the outbreak of war. The reason why Khrushchev has presented his demands with such facile impudence is that the West is not yet united in purpose and action: public opinion in this and in other Western countries has not yet readied itself to face the issue squarely.
There seems to be a tendency, particularly in this country to overestimate the strength of the Communist world. I recall the sudden loss of self-confidence immediately after the announcement of the firing of the Sputnik. It was as if the Western world had all of a sudden discovered that Russia had, to borrow a Chinese Communist phrase, "leaped forward" in scientific progress by a century. Recent visitors to Soviet Russia have come back with and have voiced impressions that the Soviet Union is superior not only in science, but also in education, in agriculture, in art and even in feminine charm. While it is dangerous to underestimate the strength and potentiality of one's enemy, it is equally dangerous to lose the sense of perspective with regard to one's own achievements and capabilities. Communist China has become relatively powerful, but the absolute sum-total of its strength is greatly overestimated.
It is a part of the Communist ideology to believe in the inevitability of its final victory over the capitalist system and to propagate that idea. Khrushchev stated in an interview with William R. Hearst, Jr., in 1955, that coexistence could be prolonged because "we on our part believe that communism is invincible and the future belongs to the communist system.... As to how long this coexistence can last, the answer is that it will depend on historical conditions." During his trip to South Asia, Khrushchev repeated his conviction that "the days of the capitalist system are numbered." Later—We will bury you."
In sharp contrast to the Communist conviction of ultimate victory the free world often seems to be in doubt of its own destiny. How can the free world develop and demonstrate more confidence in its capacity to offer to mankind a better society and a better life than Communism? How can the leading free countries convince and inspire confidence in those countries which are imminently confronted with the actuality or threat of Communist aggression? How can we assure the captive peoples that the cause of freedom is not lost forever?
Self-confidence must come first from a correct estimate of our own strength as pitted against that of our potential enemy. No one free nation today, including the United States, can with any degree of confidence claim an overwhelming superiority in military and economic strength over the Communist world. But if the free nations will but pool together their military and economic capabilities on the basis of collective security, we can have confidence. In short, we can only acquire a greater sense of security and self-confidence through greater and wider solidarity among the free nations.
Let us take note that the Communist world is not only far more united than we are; but it has also entrenched itself by pooling its economic strength. At the Communist Party Congress in January this year, a Seven-year Master Plan was presented. This plan treats the Communist bloc of nations as one economic whole and seeks to achieve an economic and industrial confederation of all the Communist countries. It proposes to allocate an enormous portion of Russian resources to developing all the Communist countries outside Russia, especially Communist China. The chief aim set forth is for the Soviet bloc to surpass the production of the entire non-Communist world, including the United States and Great Britain. It also demands an economic and industrial growth on the part of all Communist countries, including Communist China.
From reliable sources we have reason to believe that this plan was evolved as a result of consultations that had taken place between Soviet Russia and Communist China during the months previous to the meeting of the Communist Party Congress. It is probable that during the Middle East crisis the plan was being discussed in Peiping and later again in Moscow between the Chinese Communist leaders and Khrushchev. It is estimated that almost 20 per cent of Russia's national profits under the new plan is earmarked for increasing production in other Communist countries. I mention this briefly as an example of the type of planning which, it seems to me, can well be undertaken by the free world under the leadership of the United States and in conformity with its principles.
It is necessary that the free world increase its solidarity by greater unity of purpose and action in all fields of endeavor. There is yet too little regional planning in industrial and economic development, and too little understanding of the urgent need for building up the necessary defense requirements in those parts of the world where international Communism may create local tensions with which Soviet Russia will use to threaten global conflict. I am not suggesting that we the free nations should initiate any local or limited wars. But we must be prepared to fight, if local wars are forced upon us as they have been in the past. As the world situation stands today, we really cannot afford to lose any more territory or people to the Communist world. We certainly have need to be able to say "No" to their bids for more. Let us take nothing for granted when we are faced with an enemy as ruthless and as cunning as are the Communists.
I have tried to drive home the truth that Communist challenge in China is but a part of the challenge throughout the world. This challenge is not confined to China or to Asia. It is a challenge and a threat to the whole of the free world. The struggle is a life and death struggle. We Chinese, my people, know that. We have been and are under the guns. All nations in the free world should realize that they, too, are being attacked. The weapons the Communists are using against them now are high-powered propaganda, subversion and threats. Behind those are long-range missiles and hydrogen bombs.
This menace cannot be dissipated by measures of appeasement, of agreement, or of disengagement. It can be met only by a determination, a capacity and a common effort on the part of the free world to resist it. We are not beginning to fight Communism until we unite and stand firm on the principle of "each for all and all for each." Separately we all are vulnerable and we all could be conquered - one by one. Together we can be invincible.
Editor's Note—This is the text of an address delivered by Dr. George K. C. Yeh, Chinese Ambassador to the United States, before the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, California, April 3, 1959.