In recent months, an international situation of extreme gravity has been created by fresh acts of aggression committed by the Chinese Communists in Asia at the behest of the Soviet Imperialists. Following the cease-fire in Korea and Vietnam, the Chinese Communists, in total disregard of the armistice agreements, have continued to direct their efforts towards a largescale military build-up in North Korea so that they might resume military aggression at any moment. In Vietnam, they have stepped up their work of infiltration and intensified their subversive activities with a view to conquering the whole of Vietnam. The most flag rant acts of aggression, however, were committed by the Chinese Communists when they initiated hostile action against the offshore islands. By clamoring for the invasion of Taiwan, they have created grave concern and a feeling of anxiety in the entire world.
The hostile action against the offshore islands undertaken by the Chinese Communists according to the direction of their Soviet masters and their threat to invade Taiwan are motivated by the following:
First, in order to conquer the whole world, it is necessary that the Soviet Union should first conquer the whole of China. This has been the objective of the Soviet Imperialists during the last few decades. However, prior to the Sino-Japanese War, all rebellious acts undertaken by the Chinese Communists under orders of the Soviet Union were suppressed by the armed forces of the Government of the Republic of China. It was not until after the conclusion of the eight-year War of Resistance against Japan, when the resources of the Government were largely depleted, that the Chinese Communists took advantage of the crisis confronting the nation and its people to enlarge the scope of their armed rebellion against the Government. Furthermore, the lack of understanding on the part of the people at home and abroad of the true nature of the aggressive designs of the Soviet Communists and their Chinese puppets imposed tremendous difficulties on the Government. Although the Chinese mainland has now fallen into the hands of the Soviet Imperialists and Chinese Communists, the Government of the Republic of China temporarily based on Taiwan, with the support of its loyal armed forces and people at home and overseas, is not only continuing the campaign against the Communists, but is also making active preparations for the counterattack against the mainland. In order to conquer the whole of China, the Soviet Imperialists have found it necessary to order the Chinese Communists to continue their military aggression against territories that are still free.
Secondly, Taiwan is not only the base from which the Government of the Republic of China and its people will launch a counterattack against the mainland but is also an anti-Communist bastion of the free world. It forms a vital link in the anti-Communist defense line in the Pacific stretching from the Aleutians to Australia. By instigating the Chinese Communists to invade Taiwan and thus to eliminate it as anti-Communist bastion, it is the hope of the Soviet Imperialists to wreck the system of security in the Pacific Ocean. Thirdly, by ordering the Chinese Communists to undertake hostile action against the offshore islands and other regions in the Taiwan Straits, it is the purpose of the Soviet Imperialists to pose a threat to the free world. Their intention is to put fear into the hearts of certain nations, especially those which have failed to adopt a firm stand in the struggle between the democracies and the Communist nations, so that they might be panicked into offering all sorts of concessions to the Soviet bloc of aggressor nations. By disrupting the unity of the free nations, it is the hope of such aggressor nations to achieve their aims and purposes. To cite one concrete instance, it is the policy of the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists to wreck the Sino American Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the conclusion of the Treaty, the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists have kept up a tirade of denunciation. As a further step, they are now using the threat of military action to cow the appeasement-minded nations into exerting pressure on the United States in order to block the ratification of the Treaty. The same tactics, it goes without saying, are being employed by Soviet Russia to wreck the Paris Agreements aimed at the strengthening of Western European defense.
In starting hostilities ag1inst the offshore is lands and clamoring for the invasion of Taiwan, the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists never imagined that instead of weakening the will of the governments and peoples of China and the United States, such action would serve to strengthen their determination to resist aggression. So far as the Republic of China is concerned, the battle of Yikiangshan has fully demonstrated the will of the Chinese people to resist Communist aggression regardless of the cost. The thousand-odd troops and civilians succeeded in holding that tiny island for three days before succumbing to the joint onslaught of vastly superior Communist land, naval and air forces. The glorious deeds of the gallant defenders will forever live in the history of the Republic of China. It is this unshakable anti-Communist spirit so well displayed by the martyrs of Yikiangshan which constitutes the best guarantee for the final success of our anti-Communist resist-Russia campaign.
Speaking of the United States, the hostilities started by the Chinese Communists against the offshore islands have served to heighten the awareness on the part of her people of the real nature of Communism. While Congressional discussion of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty was still pending, President Eisenhower requested on January 24 for Congressional authority to use U. S. armed forces whenever necessary to ensure the security of Taiwan, Peng-hu and other related areas. This request enjoyed the support of an overwhelming majority of members of both Houses and was approved without any delay. The passage of the Resolution, which fully indicated the determination of the United States Government and people to resist Communist aggression, has filled us with a sense of gratification.
Unfortunately, the United Nations Security Council has seen fit to take up the cease-fire proposal submitted by New Zealand and, what is more, to invite the Chinese Communists to participate in the discussion. We can only conclude that this decision is the result of the threat to the free world posed by the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists. The Chinese Communists have shown themselves to be the tools of Soviet aggression in China and other countries in Asia. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Communist puppet regime on the mainland was created by the Soviet Union and imposed on the Chinese people. Countless atrocities have been committed by this puppet regime. Internally, it has not only slaughtered many and enslaved all of our compatriots, but has also turned the entire manpower, material and financial resources on the Chinese mainland to the service of the Soviet Imperialist war ma chine. Externally, it has invaded the Republic of Korea under the direction of the Soviet Union, detained war prisoners in contravention of the armistice agreement, enlarged the scope of rebellion in Vietnam, and engaged in infiltration and subversive activities in other countries in Asia. When the Chinese Communists intervened in the Korean War, the United Nations, bowing to the suggestion of the appeasement-minded nations, invited representatives of the Chinese Communist puppet regime to participate in discussions at the United Nations. It was not until the Chinese Communists had been engaged in fighting the United Nations forces for over two years that the United Nations finally branded them as aggressors and placed an embargo against them. The Chinese Communists showed scant regard for the resolutions of the United Nations. What is more, they succeeded in greatly damaging the prestige of the United Nations by openly accusing it of aggression at the Geneva Conference. Inconceivable as it is, the United Nations Security Council has again seen fit to extend an invitation to the Chinese Communists. This invitation has been flatly rejected. It is not easy to understand what the United Nations is trying to achieve by adopting such a course of action. To our mind, such action cannot fail to give further encouragement to the Communist aggressors and deal the already weakened world body another crucial blow.
The United Nations is primarily an organization for the sanction of aggression and the maintenance of international peace, security and righteousness. The Republic of China is one of the founder nations of the United Nations. She is also one of its Charter Members. Since its inauguration, our country has been giving it full support and has scrupulously observed its Charter, hoping thereby it may become an international organization worthy of the principles of its Charter. But when the Chinese mainland was subjected to the aggression of the puppets of Soviet Russia, the United Nations took no action against the aggressors. It considered that it had fully lived up to its duty by merely adopting a resolution later to the effect that Soviet Russia had failed to carry out her treaty obligations to China. The aggressive forces of the Communist Peiping regime, having received encouragement, initiated the Korean War. To uphold righteousness, the United Nations imposed sanctions against the aggression of Communist Peiping. But after more than two years of war, it concluded a cease-fire agreement with the Communist Peiping regime in total disregard of right and wrong. When the Chinese Communists followed it with the invasion of Indo-china, the United Nations, instead of imposing sanctions against them, watched with indifference the cession of half of the territory by Indochina to the Chinese Communists as a price for peace.
After the occupation of the Chinese mainland, these habitual criminals against international peace are again invading the territories of Free China under the instigation of the Russian imperialists. Under such circumstances, the United Nations should have little choice but to impose severe sanctions against the aggressors. Surprisingly, the Security Council has adopted a resolution aimed at bringing about a cease-fire between a Member State and the aggressors. Even if an agreement could be reached for a cease-fire, it would only bear resemblance to the ones concluded for Korea and Indochina, in which the injured party would be forced to recognize the fait accompli of the aggressors. If this should be the case, where are the dignity, authority and righteousness of the United Nations? If there is any sense for the Security Council to invite a representative of the Chinese Communist regime to a conference sponsored by the United Nations, it should be for the purpose of the trial of and imposing a sanction against, this habitual international criminal for its aggression on the Chinese mainland, in Korea, in Indochina and now again against the Republic of China. Otherwise, the United Nations will be acting against its own principles, with the possible consequence of sealing its own fate.
The preamble to the New Zealand resolution states that the question of hostilities in the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China endangers international peace and the maintenance of security. We must realize that the present hostilities around our offshore is lands were all started by the Chinese Communists through their shelling of Kinmen Islands. They are a continuation and an extension of Soviet Russian aggression in China. The Republic of China, in continuing her resistance against aggression, had to hit back. The United Nations should do the proper thing by imposing sanctions against the aggressors instead of wasting its time on a cease-fire proposal. This should be so for two reasons. First, the aggression of the international Communist bloc will never stop. Second, the United Nations should not impose equal responsibility for the cease-fire on the invader and a Member State which is being invaded.
Furthermore, if the cease-fire arranged by the United Nations follows the line of similar arrangements in Korea and Indochina, it is tantamount to recognition of the fait accompli of the aggressors. In the end, it will encourage them to start aggression on a larger scale and create far more serious fait accompli to force recognition from the United Nations.
When the United Nations disregards the fact that one of its Member States is invaded and fails to impose sanctions against the aggressors, when it accords recognition to the fait accompli of the aggressors in the form of a cease-fire, when it invites the aggressors to a tend triumphantly a meeting sponsored by itself, and when in addition it imposes on a Member State the equal obligation of a cease-fire to compel it to sacrifice its I sovereignty, territory and people taken away from it as a result of aggression, the United Nations would one day follow the path of the defunct League of Nations.
In dealing with the cease-fire proposal of New Zealand, the Security Council also included in its agenda Soviet Russia's accusation of the United States aggression of China. In harping on this old theme of requesting the United States to withdraw her air and naval forces from Chinese territory, Soviet Russia in fact wanted to cover her own acts of aggression in China. Such senseless resolutions have more than once been introduced in and voted down by the United Nations. If the United Nations is upright, then not only should it forbid Soviet Russia to heap insults on a Member State in its meetings, but it should also render a decision requesting Soviet Russia to withdraw from the Chinese territory. There is no justification for the two hundred thousand military and Communist Party Russian workers and their fifth columnists to loiter for one single moment on the Chinese mainland.
The cease-fire resolution involves another unreasonable argument which resulted from a mistaken notion of some foreign observers about Taiwan. Without justification, these people say that the status of Taiwan has not been determined and that they want to find a solution for it after the conclusion of the cease-fire agreement. This argument is contrary to fact, and its proponents obviously have an ax to grind. There may be some countries who wish to resort to the secret diplomacy of the Geneva Conference. If this is true, then they will ignore the existence of the United Nations. They will not only betray a Member State of the United Nations but also betray the United Nations which they themselves had a hand in organizing.
I recall that in 1943, the late American President Roosevelt and the present British Prime Minister Churchill and I held a conference at Cairo to discuss problems relating to the prosecution of war against Japan and its after math. In the communique issued at the conclusion of the conference, we announced that all the territories "stolen" by Japan from China, including the Northeast provinces and Taiwan and Penghu, should be returned to the Republic of China. This announcement was recognized by the Potsdam Declaration and accepted by Japan at the time of her surrender. Its validity is thus based on a number of agreements and should not be questioned.
Therefore, when Japan surrendered, the Government of the Republic of China repossessed Taiwan and Penghu and constituted them as Taiwan Province. Since that time, Taiwan and Penghu have regained their status as an integral unit of the territory of the Republic of China. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, Japan renounced her sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, there by completing the process of restoring these areas to our country. The people I mentioned above must all know the bases of law and history about Taiwan and Penghu. That they purposely choose to misinterpret them shows that they have an ax to grind.
Some people deny the validity of the Cairo Declaration in order to justify their distorted view about the status of Taiwan. If one could deny the validity of the Cairo Declaration, what about the Potsdam Declaration and all the international treaties and agreements concluded since the termination of the Second World War? Could their validity be also denied? If the Democracies repudiate the Cairo Declaration, which they signed themselves, how, either now or in the future, can they criticize the Communist aggressive bloc for tearing up treaties and agreements? Those who play fast and loose with the status of Taiwan do so against their own conscience. In their eagerness to appease the aggressors they have their eyes fixed on a transient state of affairs. . They do not realize how gravely they jeopardize world security by arguing from bad law and false policies. Some countries, taking a very dim view of international faith, have recognized the Communist puppet Peiping regime created by imperialistic Russia. Simply because they recognize the phenomenon created by Soviet aggression through their Chinese stooges, they do not regard the Chinese mainland as the territory of the Republic of China. In order to please Soviet Russia and the Chinese Communist regime by placing more interests of the Republic of China on the platter, they further deny the sovereignty of the Republic of China over the offshore islands now defended by our forces. I wish to declare most solemnly to the whole world: The United Nations Charter has expressly laid down the injunction against any Member State encroaching upon the territorial integrity and political independence of another. Although our mainland is at present under the occupation of that instrument of Soviet aggression, the Communist puppet Peiping regime, it is nevertheless a part of the territory of the Republic of China. No one can deny this. Our Government has naturally the responsibility to drive out the aggressors and recover our lost territories. Elected by the people and charged with this responsibility, the Government can under no circumstance renounce it. Furthermore, we have to help our mainland compatriots in their struggle for freedom. We must not allow them to remain enslaved by their Russian overlords forever.
We have also heard about the ridiculous view of "two Chinas." This is simply absurd. I would like to ask those people holding such view whether, if unhappily Soviet Russia should invade their countries and install Quisling regimes on their soil, they would still be prepared to swallow the reality of having their countries cut into halves. "Do not do unto others what you do not like done unto yourself," taught Confucius. This is a principle of behavior not only between man and man, but also between country and country.
At this moment, to ride over the world crisis created by the international gang of Communist aggressors, the Democracies have a good deal to do. There is nothing more important to them than the reaffirmation of international righteousness. This is the most effective way of fighting the aggressors. For the democratic countries to disregard righteousness and the United Nations Charter or for some of the Member States of the United Nations to appease the aggressors at the expense of some others is tantamount to helping the aggressors by whetting their appetite. Such selfish practice will prove to be a boomerang to such selfish countries. We must remember that it is just as important to develop the spiritual potential of international righteousness as to develop atomic and hydrogen weapons.
Travelling along the arduous path towards our goal, we have our ally the United States and other democratic countries by our side. We have full confidence in our future. Although the United Nations has disappointed us, our support for the Charter remains as staunch as ever. We are anxious to see the United Nations uphold international righteousness and we are sure that the United States will raise her mighty arms in upholding international righteousness. Created and existing upon the principles of freedom and justice, the United States has always upheld these principles and overcome difficulties whenever confronted with a critical international situation. We remember very well how effectively John Hay's Open Door Policy and Henry Stimson's Non-Recognition Doctrine, which were but manifestations of these principles, checked aggression and safeguarded world peace. We firmly believe that in its present struggle against Communist aggression, the United States will continue to serve these principles and lead the free world onward to victory.
President Chiang Kai-shek's Statement on the Evacuation of the Tachens for Strengthening the Defense of Kinmen and Matsu, February 7, 1955
In order to meet the new challenge of international Communist aggression, the Government has decided to redeploy the forces defending the Tachens on Kinmen, Matsu and other places for the purpose of concentrating military forces and intensifying the preparations for the recovery of the mainland.
I am fully aware of the deep concern felt by my comrades in the three armed services and fellow countrymen at home and abroad with this painful decision. For this reason I wish to make the following explanations:
The international Communist bloc has repeatedly attacked our offshore islands recently, which lays bare their design of military aggression in the area of the Taiwan Straits. Acting on its Anti-Communist and Resist-Russia policy, the Government takes it as a matter of first priority the defense of the bastion of Taiwan and the outlying islands. At the same time we and our ally, the United States, are working hard over the defense of our respective territories in the Western Pacific against international Communist aggression. To meet new developments and to coordinate the efforts between the allies, the Government is redeploying its forces through transferring the garrison troops on islands not vital to the defense of Taiwan to related positions and territories deemed essential to that defense.
Our national forces have been defending the Tachens for more than five years. These is lands are isolated two hundred fifty nautical miles away from Taiwan. The latest military developments have made them lose their strategic value. Therefore, our Government has, after consultation with the United States, decided to redeploy the forces on the Tachens for strengthening the defense of Taiwan, Penghu and other outlying islands. In short, our pro gram of counterattacking the Communists for the recovery of the mainland must strictly con form with three basic principles.
First, the most important task of the Government forces at the present time is to counterattack the Communists and recover the mainland for the salvation of our fellow countrymen. This is a long, difficult struggle. Under the present military situation, our Government forces, in order to conserve their counterattack potential, should under no circumstance be allowed to be dissipated at such time and place as the enemy may choose. From now on, each engagement of the Government forces must be undertaken in furtherance of our general objective. Unless there is possibility of exacting a high price from the enemy, neither a single man nor a single bullet should be dissipated. Nor should we allow the local population suffer unnecessary sacrifices.
Second, to insure victory of our war of counterattack and national recovery, our first duty should be to consolidate Taiwan, Penghu and other islands shielding them, such as Kinmen, Matsu, etc. Therefore, the evacuation of the Tachens and redeployment of the forces there for strengthening the defense of the bastion of Taiwan and the outlying related territories mean the readjustment of the defense line of the Government forces. These are positive preparations for the counterattack and not a negative retreat. They are the concentration and consolidation, and not the diminution and weakening, of our forces.
Third, the occupation of the Chinese mainland by the international Communist bloc is a military action of international character. For this reason, the carrying out of our fundamental national policy against Communism and Russian aggression must be coordinated with the action of the world-wide democratic front. The transference and redeployment of our forces of the Tachen area are acts taken with these new strategic requirements in view. Thus, in the face of Communist aggression, we must avoid that kind of war of attrition that will be harmful to our efforts to recover our territory and can only cause unnecessary losses to our armed forces and civilians. At the same time, we must not impose additional burden on our ally those which she has already undertaken in joining our defense of Taiwan and the related positions and territories. Otherwise, we would be falling victims of enemy diversionary tactics.
For the above reasons, the Government has, after consultation with the Government of the United States, decided to take the measures which I have already mentioned above. From a strategic point of view, I have but little regret for the transference of our forces from the Tachens. What the Government is most concerned about is the welfare of the some 17,000 local population. While regretting leaving their beloved birthplace, they have, everyone of them, petitioned the Government not to leave them behind to the cruelty of the Communists. They choose to come to Taiwan with our forces, and to continue their cooperation for regaining the mainland. The Government has therefore acted in deference to their patriotic feelings. Priority of transportation has been accorded them and their resettlement will be the responsibility of the Government. Furthermore, the broad assistance and protective cover in the execution of our evacuation plan, so generously rendered us by the United States Government, certainly call for our gratitude. These are added proofs of American friendship towards our army and people, and are a manifestation of the century-old traditional friendliness between our two countries. It is in fact a further strengthening of bonds between us.
I am further convinced that this military redeployment on our part will not only achieve the effect of strengthening the defense of Taiwan and Penghu and the outlying islands of Kinmen, Matsu, etc., but will also harden the blows upon the international Communist aggressive bloc and contribute towards the safeguarding of freedom and security in the Asian and the Pacific area through the solidarity and cooperation of China and the United States.
Transcript of President Chiang Kai-shek's Press Conference on Cease-fire and Other Questions, February 14, 1955
Question:
What is the attitude of the Chinese Government toward the cease fire proposal?
Answer:
The Chinese Communists are an instrument of Russian imperialism and a habitual criminal against international peace. During the Korean War, they were formally branded by the United Nations as aggressors. The United Nations also adopted a resolution to lay an embargo on the territory under their control. But as soon as the Korean War ended, they stepped up their aggression in Indochina. As soon as a cease-fire was arranged in Indochina, they clamored for the invasion of Taiwan and started hostilities against our offshore islands on September 3 of last year. This is obviously a continuation of the Russian imperialists' aggression in China with the Chinese Communists as their agents and an extension of the Korean and the Indochinese Wars. The United Nations should properly act in accordance with its Charter and impose sanctions against the aggressors instead of negotiating a cease-fire with them. The United Nations should order the aggressors to stop their aggression but should under no circumstance ask the injured party to give up his right of self-defense.
From the tragic lessons of the wars in Korea and Indochina, can we say that a cease-fire arrangement will stop aggression? Aggression is the characteristic of international Communism. It knows no bounds. In the past, the United Nations, at the price of sacrificing the interests of the injured party, succeeded only in gaining a momentary peace or turning the direction of aggression from one place to another.
Question:
What is the view of the Chinese Government toward the Geneva type of cease-fire conference?
Answer:
If there is any sense for the Security Council to invite a representative of the Chinese Communist regime to appear before the forum of the world, it should be for the purpose of the trial of, and imposing a sanction against, this habitual international criminal for its aggression on the Chinese mainland, in Korea, in Indochina and now again against the Republic of China. Otherwise, the United Nations will be acting against its own principles. If the democratic countries of the world should take a further false step by holding a conference outside the United Nations, it would be tantamount to inviting the criminal to talk over the matter in a tea or wine shop outside the law court. This would only constitute a disregard of the existence of the United Nations, a sacrifice of the principle of international justice and a boost to the aggressor's prestige.
Question:
What is the view of the Government of the Republic of China about certain talks in international circles that Kinmen, Matsu and other offshore islands should be long to the Chinese Communists?
Answer:
The territory of the Republic of China is not to be carved up. Although the Chinese mainland has been stolen by the Peiping puppet regime, a mere tool of Soviet imperialistic aggression, it is still a part of the territory of the Republic of China, which the people and Government of the Republic of China are determined to recover. Kinmen and Matsu have not been stolen by the Chinese Communists. They constitute parts of the bastion where our people and Government are withstanding the aggression of the international Communist bloc. In no case would they be abandoned to the enemy.
Question:
After the garrison troops of the Tachens are evacuated and redeployed elsewhere, do you think that the Communists will be satisfied with the occupation of these is lands and make a halt, or do you think that they will continue to proceed with their plan to invade Taiwan?
Answer:
The evacuation of the Tachens is a correct strategic move. However, aggressiveness being an inborn nature of the Communists, their occupation of the Tachens will certainly make them more adventurous.
Question:
What is the view of the Government of the Republic of China about the proposal for "two Chinas?"
Answer:
Such a proposal is absurd. The four-thousand-year-old Chinese history shows that although there have been rebellions staged by traitors at the instigation of and supported by foreign enemies, the Chinese nation always has been a unified State. "The loyal and the traitorous cannot co-exist," This has always been accepted by all Chinese as a basic concept of loyalty towards the country. To recognize the rule of traitors goes against all teachings of our history. Besides, the cruelty practised by the Chinese Communists is such as we have never witnessed in history. If we recognized the fruit of Soviet aggression in China, we would be abandoning the four hundred and fifty millions of our people to the tyranny of imperialistic Russia and the Chinese Communists. We would be watching the enslavement and butchering of our own people without raising a finger. Then we would be committing the most grievous crime in the whole course of 'human history. It goes without saying that the people and Government of the Republic of China cannot renounce the sacred mission of liberating their compatriots on the mainland. Furthermore, I do not think that the free world as a whole will tolerate the translation into fact of such absurd theory against all principles of righteousness and justice.
Question:
Will the United States join the defense of Kinmen and Matsu if and when these islands are at tacked?
Answer:
With regard to the question of the joint defense of the offshore islands, the statements made by the Governments of the Republic of China and the United States have been clear enough and need no more elucidation. That the defense of Kinmen and Matsu is essential to the defense of Taiwan and Penghu should have become an opinion generally accepted by qualified military experts.
Question:
What repercussion, both in Soviet Russia and elsewhere, will follow the resignation of Malenkov as Prime Minister of the U.S.S.R.?
Answer:
The resignation of Malenkov as Prime Minister of the Soviet Union is of course the result of its internal strife. Such strife is more in the nature of policy conflict than personal rivalry. From this latest strife Khrushchev and Bulganin have emerged victorious. They are the men who led the Soviet Delegation to Peiping last October to sign a joint communique with the Chinese Communists. It will be remembered that one of the major policies embodied in this joint communique is to pave the way for Communist aggression in the Pacific area by constructing two railways across the length and width of the Eurasian land mass, from Urga to Tsining and from Alma-Ata to Lanchow respectively. The coming into power of Bulganin and Khrushchev signals the ascendancy of their policy for still closer cooperation between the Russian imperialists and their Chinese Communist puppets for the purpose of advancing toward the Pacific Ocean.
Apart from the answers I gave to the questions, I wish to make the following brief statement:
(1) The successful completion of the redeployment plan of our armed forces and the evacuation of the civilian population of Tachen is the direct result of the publicly stated determination of President Eisenhower to use the full force of the Seventh Fleet to counteract any attempt at frustrating the execution of the plan. This de termination prevented the Communists from precipitating any military adventure. It represents one round in favor of the democratic front.
(2) The perfect military and political cooperation, especially the coordination between the respective Chinese and American ser vices, has laid a firm foundation for the anti-Communist mutual aid and the security of the Pacific and East Asia area. The assistance furnished by elements of the U.S. Marine Corps, working non-stop on a 24-hour basis, has left an indelible impression on both our civilian population and members of our armed forces. In the name of the armed forces and people of the Republic of China, I wish to express our appreciation to the offices and men of the U. S. Seventh Fleet under the command of Admiral Alfred Pride.
(3) The 17,000 civilian residents on the Tachen Islands had been given freedom of choice as to whether they should remain or be transferred to Taiwan. Without exception, every man and woman chose to come to Taiwan. The will of the people, when they are free to choose, cannot be demonstrated with greater clarity. This, following the choice of freedom of the 14,000 prisoners of war in Korea, constitutes another glorious chapter in the annals of resistance against Communist aggression.
(4) Finally, I hope the democracies will strive to preserve the fruits produced by this unswerving determination. If further at tempts at appeasement can be resisted, I sincerely believe that the security of the Pacific can be assured and further aggression of International Communism in East Asia can be prevented.
President Eisenhower's Message to the U. S. Congress on the Formosan Situation, January 24, 1955
The most important objective of our nation's foreign policy is to safeguard the security of the United States by establishing and preserving a just and honorable peace. In the Western Pacific, a situation is developing in the Formosa Straits, that seriously imperils the peace and our security.
Since the end of the Japanese hostilities in 1945, Formosa and the Pescadores have been in the friendly hands of our loyal ally, the Republic of China. We have recognized that it was important that these islands should remain in friendly hands. In unfriendly hands, Formosa and the Pescadores would seriously dislocate the existing, even if unstable, balance of moral, economic and military forces upon wh1ch the peace of the Pacific depends. It would create a breach in the island chain of the Western Pacific that constitutes, for the United States and other free nations, the geographical backbone of their security structure in that ocean. In addition, this breach would interrupt north-south communications between other important elements of that barrier, and damage the economic life of countries friendly to us.
The United States and the friendly government of the Republic of China, and indeed all the free nations, have a common interest that Formosa and the Pescadores should not fall into the control of aggressive Communist forces. Influenced by such conditions, our government was prompt, when the Communists committed armed aggression in Korea in June 1950, to direct our Seventh Fleet to defend Formosa from possible invasion from the Communist mainland.
These considerations are still valid. The Seventh Fleet continues under presidential directive to carry out that defensive mission. We also provide military and economic support to the Chinese Nationalist government and we cooperate in every proper and feasible way with that government in order to promote its security and stability. All of these military and related activities will be continued.
In addition, there was signed last December a mutual defense treaty between this Government and the Republic of China covering Formosa and the neighboring Pescadores. It is a treaty of purely defensive character. The treaty is now before the Senate of the United States.
Meanwhile, Communist China has pursued a series of provocative political and military actions, establishing a pattern of aggressive purpose. That purpose, they proclaim, is the conquest of Formosa.
In September 1954 the Chinese Communists opened up heavy artillery fire upon Quemoy Island, one of the natural approaches to Formosa, which had for several years been under the uncontested control of the Republic of China. Then came air attacks of mounting intensity against other Free China islands, notably those in the vicinity of the Tachen group to the north of Formosa. One small island (Ichiang) was seized last week by air and amphibious operations after a gallant few fought bravely for days against overwhelming odds. There have been recent heavy air attacks and artillery fire against the main Tachen islands themselves.
The Chinese Communists themselves assert that these attacks are a prelude to the conquest of Formosa. F or example, after the fall of Ichiang, the Peiping radio said that it showed a "determined will to fight for the liberation of Taiwan (Formosa). Our people will use all their strength to fulfill that task."
Clearly, this existing, and developing situation poses a serious danger to the security of our country and of the entire Pacific area and indeed to the peace of the world. We believe that the situation is one for appropriate action of the United Nations under its Charter, for the purpose of ending the present hostilities in that area. We would welcome assumption of such jurisdiction by that body.
Meanwhile, the situation has become sufficiently critical to impel me, without awaiting action by the United Nations, to ask the Congress to participate now, by specific resolution, in measures designed to improve the prospects for peace. These measures would contemplate the use of the armed forces of the United States if necessary to assure the security of Formosa and the Pescadores.
The actions that the United States must be ready to undertake are of various kinds. For example, we must be ready to assist the Republic of China to redeploy and consolidate its forces if it should so desire. Some of these forces are scattered throughout the smaller offshore islands as a result of historical rather than military reasons directly related to defending Formosa. Because of the air situation in the area, withdrawals for the purpose of redeployment of Chinese Nationalist forces would be impractical without assistance of the armed forces of the United, States.
Moreover, we must be alert to any concentration or employment of Chinese Communist forces obviously undertaken to facilitate attack upon Formosa, and be prepared to take appropriate military action.
I do not suggest that the United States enlarge its defensive obligations beyond Formosa and the Pescadores as provided by the Treaty now awaiting ratification. But unhappily, the danger of armed attack directed against that area compels us to take into account closely related localities and actions which, under cur rent conditions, might determine the failure or the success of such an attack.
The authority that may be accorded by the Congress would be used only in situations which are recognizable as parts of, or definite preliminaries to, an attack against the main positions of Formosa and the Pescadores.
Authority for some of the actions which might be required would be inherent in the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress can act I would not hesitate, so far as my constitutional powers extend, to take whatever emergency action might be forced upon us in order to protect the rights and security of the United States.
However, a suitable Congressional resolution would clearly and publicly establish the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief employ the armed forces of this nation promptly and effectively for the purposes indicated if in his judgement it became necessary. It would make clear the unified and serious intentions of our government, our Congress and our people. Thus it will reduce the possibility that the Chinese Communists, misjudging our firm purpose and national unity, might be disposed to challenge the position of the United States, and precipitate a major crisis which even they would neither anticipate nor desire.
In the interest of peace, therefore, the United States must remove any doubt regarding our readiness to fight, it necessary, to preserve the vital stake of the free world in a free Formosa and to engage in whatever operations may be required to carry out that purpose.
To make this plain requires not only Presidential action but also Congressional action. In a situation such as now confronts us, and under modern conditions of warfare, it would not be prudent to await the emergency before coming to Congress. Then it might be too late. Already the warning signals are flying.
I believe that the threatening aspects of the present situation, if resolutely faced, may be temporary in character. Consequently, I recommend that the resolution expire as soon as the President is able to report to the Congress that the peace and security of the area are reason ably assured by international conditions, resulting from United Nations action or otherwise.
Again I say that we would welcome action by the United Nations which might, in fact, bring an end to the active hostilities in that area. This critical situation has been created by the choice of the Chinese Communists, not by us. Their offensive military intent has been flaunted to the whole world by words and by deeds. Just as they created the situation, so they can end it if they so choose.
What we are now seeking is primarily to clarify present policy and to unite in its application. We are not establishing a new policy. Consequently, my recommendations do not call for an increase in the armed forces of the United States or any acceleration in military procurement or levels of defense production. If any unforeseen emergency arises requiring any change, I will communicate with the Congress. I hope, however, that the effect of an appropriate Congressional resolution will be to calm the situation rather than to create further conflict.
One final point. The action I request is, of course, no substitute for the treaty with the Republic of China which we have signed and which I have transmitted to the Senate. Indeed, present circumstances make it more than ever important that this basic agreement should be promptly brought into force, as a solemn evidence of our determination to stand fast in the agreed treaty area and to thwart all attacks directed against it. If delay should make us appear indecisive in this basic respect, the pressures and dangers would surely mount.
Our purpose is peace. That cause will be served if, with your help, we demonstrate our unity and our determination. In all that we do we shall remain faithful to our obligations as a member of the United Nations to be ready to settle our international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
For the reasons outlined in this message, I respectfully request that the Congress take appropriate action to carry out the recommendations contained herein.
Text of Joint Congressional Resolution for the Defense of Formosa and the Pescadoes Passed by the U. S. House of Representatives by a 409-3 Vote on January 25, and the U.S. Senate by an 85-3 Vote on January 28, 1955
Whereas the primary purpose of the United States in its relation with all other nations is to develop and sustain a just and enduring peace for all; and
Whereas certain territories in the West Pacific under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China are now under armed attack, and threats and declarations have been made and are being made by the Chinese Communists that such armed attack is in aid of and in preparation for armed attack on Formosa and the Pescadores; and
Whereas such armed attack if continued would gravely endanger the peace and security of the West Pacific area and particularly of Formosa and the Pescadores; and
Whereas the secure possession by friendly governments of the Western Pacific island chain, of which Formosa is a part, is essential to the vital interests of the United States and all friendly nations in or bordering on the Pacific Ocean; and
Whereas the President of the United States on January 6, 1955, submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification of a mutual defense treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China, which recognizes that an armed attack in the Western Pacific area directed against territories therein described, in the region of Formosa and the Pescadores, would be dangerous to the peace and safety of the parties to the treaty;
Therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled
That the President of the United States be and hereby is authorized to employ the armed forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa and the Pescadores against armed attack, this authority to include the se curing and protecting of such related positions and territories of that area now in friendly hands and the taking of such other measures as he judges to be required or appropriate in assuring the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores.
This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions, created by actions of the United Nations or otherwise, and shall so report to the Congress.
Text of the Part of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles's Address before the Foreign Policy Association, New York, Bearing on the Formosan Area, February 16, 1955
The United States is firmly committed to the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores. These islands became part of the Japanese Empire in 1895. They continued as such for half a century, until they were relinquished by Japan as a result of her defeat in war—a defeat principally wrought by the efforts and sacrifices of the United States.
These islands form an important part of the Western Pacific defense system which I have described. The people of the islands eagerly seek our help.
Thus Formosa and the Pescadores have been properly' a matter of concern to the United Stares.
In 1945 our long time ally, the Republic of China, was entrusted with authority over these " islands. In 1950, when the aggression against " Korea occurred, President Truman ordered our Pacific Fleet to defend Formosa against possible Chinese Communist attack. Now, that determination has been converted into our mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China.
It is important to note that the treaty, except as it relates to United States territories, covers only the islands of Formosa and the Pescadores, and any armed attack directed against those islands. The congressional authority is to secure and protect Formosa and the Pescadores against armed attack, and to make secure and to protect "related positions and territories." As the President judges, "This would be required or appropriate in assuring the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores".
The President did not use our armed forces to help the Chinese Nationalists to hold the Tachen Islands and Yushan and Pishan, lying some 200 miles north of Formosa. These is lands were virtually unrelated to the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores. We helped the Chinese Nationalists to evacuate these islands and regroup their forces, so as to avoid a bloody and wasteful battle which would have inflamed public emotions. Thus, Nationalist China and the United States have made an important contribution to the cause of peace.
It has been suggested that Nationalist China should go further and surrender to the Chinese Communists the coastal positions which the Communists need to stage their announced at tack on Formosa.
It is doubtful that this would serve either the cause of peace or the cause of freedom.
The Chinese Communists have been the initiators of violence in this area. They have already formally declared their intention to take Formosa by force. If the Chinese Nationalists now oblige by making it easier for the Chinese Communists to conquer Formosa, will they be less apt to do so? I doubt it.
The United States had no commitment and no purpose to defend the coastal positions as such. The basic purpose is to assure that Formosa and the Pescadores will not be forcibly taken over by the Chinese Communists. However, Foreign Minister Chou says they will use all their force to take Formosa and they treat the coastal islands as means to that end. When the Nationalists voluntarily evacuated the Tachen Islands, the Chinese Communists' comment was: "The liberation of these islands created favorable conditions for our People's Liberation Army in the liberation of Formosa".
Thus the Chinese Communists have linked the coastal positions to the defense of Formosa. That is the fact which, as President Eisenhower said in his message to Congress about Formosa, "compels us to take into account closely related localities." Accordingly, we shall be alert to subsequent Chinese Communist actions, rejecting for ourselves any initiative of warlike deeds.
It is hardly to be expected that the Chinese Communists will renounce their ambitions. However, might they not renounce their efforts to realize their goals by force?
Such renunciation of force is one of the basic principles of the United Nations and the United States has hoped, and still hopes, that the United Nations may be able to effect a cessation of the present hostilities. President Eisenhower, in his message to Congress dealing with this matter, made clear that the United States would welcome action by the United Nations which might bring an end to the active hostilities in the area. The government of New Zealand has brought this situation before the Security Council, and the United States, in the interest of peace, went to the length of voting to invite the Chinese Communists to come to the Security Council to discuss the matter.
In 1950, the Chinese Communists had accepted a Security Council invitation in relation to Korea. However, this time the Chinese Communists contemptuously rejected the invitation.
We sincerely hope that this decision of the Chinese Communists is not irrevocable and they will abide by the principles of the United Nations rather than challenge by force the obligations of this country. In any event, we believe that their attitude toward the United Nations Security Council has not ended the responsibility of that body which, by the Charter, has, the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
It should not, moreover, be carelessly assumed that peace and security will be promoted merely by the non-Communist nations indefinitely granting one sided concessions to the Communist nations.
A great danger in Asia is the fear of many non-Communist peoples that the United States has no real intention of standing firmly behind them. Already that fear has mounted to the danger point. We accepted in Korea an armistice which the Chinese Communists boisterously misrepresent as a "victory" for them. We acquiesced in an Indochina armistice which reflected the defeat of the French Union forces at Dien Bien Phu. We aided the Tachen evacuation. The reasons were compelling, nevertheless, the result added a few square miles to the Communist domain.
If the non-Communist Asians ever come to feel that their western allies are disposed to re treat whenever communism threatens the peace, then the entire area could quickly become indefensible.
As the situation now exists, neither the cause of freedom, nor United States security, nor world peace and security, would be promoted by undermining the faith of the Free Asian peoples in our strength and in our willingness to use that strength to restrain those who violently menace liberty. The American people have, through the Congress, made their own resolution clear. This is a verdict which the government accepts as sound and which it will soberly execute.
* * * *
There is nothing difficult in the world; a man of dogged determination can do anything successfully. There is nothing easy in the world; a careless man can never do anything well.
Yuan Mei
Whatever you should do by yourself should not be expected to be done by others. Whatever should be done today should not be put off till tomorrow.
Dr. Sun Yat-sen