One thing which China has in common with the United States is that in our conduct of international relations, we place great emphasis on ideals and principles and that our foreign policy is not always based on realism. On many occasions we would rather sacrifice our material interest to uphold certain ideals and principles.
In this connection, two examples from U.S. history may be cited: One is the John Hay Declaration of September 6,1899 regarding the open door policy which saved China from partition and the other Secretary of State Stimson's note of January 8, 1932 in which he laid down the non-recognition doctrine. Both cases show that the United States preferred upholding ideals and principles to seeking a compromise with the aggressor in the name of realism. In the case of China, we can also cite a number of instances from history in the conduct of our foreign relations. The most obvious example is China's three wars with Japan in defense of the independence of Korea: First in the Tang Dynasty during the 7th century; second, in the Ming Dynasty during the 17th century and third, the Sino-Japanese war 1894-95. We do not deny that in going to war with Japan for Korea, China had in her mind considerations of national interests, but it is indisputable that one of the primary motives that impelled China to go to war is its traditional friendship with Korea and the simple Chinese concept that "you cannot forsake a friend in times of disaster."
Partly because of this common characteristic, China and the United States fought shoulder to shoulder against Japanese aggression in the last World War. Today, in a common fight against Communism, the Chinese people have again cooperated with the United States. They are delighted with President Eisenhower's visit to the Republic of China, because they see in it America's concern over the seriousness of the situation in the Far East, her sympathy for the sufferings the hundreds of millions of Chinese people on the mainland, her realization of the importance of Asia in the present struggle between Democracy and Communism and her understanding of the fact that Asia is now the main target of Communist aggression and infiltration.
In spite of their great joy over Eisenhower's visit, the Chinese people understand that in their present fight against Communism, they have to rely mainly on their own efforts, particularly for the recovery of the mainland. Moral support is what they expect from the United States more than anything else.
In order to avoid any misapprehension, we wish particularly the United States to understand that the question of the recovery of the Chinese mainland is chiefly a political struggle against the Chinese Communists and what determines its success or failure is not the mere use of force. From lessons gained from history, we know that victory always belongs to the one who can conserve enough strength to achieve such a degree of moral and political preponderancy that there would need little military fighting to defeat the enemy.
Of course, we fully realize the importance of the aid from the United States. The United States can help immensely by standing firmly in its consistent policy of not-recognizing the Chinese Communist regime and by upholding freedom, justice and humanity. The duration of the sufferings of our brethren on the mainland will be shortened, if the free world will lend its timely support to the Republic of China in her struggle against Chinese Communism. Her triumphant return to the mainland is not only essential to the peace and security of Asia but will also be a common blessing to all free nations.
We all rejoice at President Eisenhower's visit because it gives us a rare opportunity to extend our warmest welcome to a great leader of a great nation, whom we have so long admired and respected. We are certain that the traditional friendship between the United States and China will be greatly strengthened by President Eisenhower's visit to the Republic of China. What is more, we are hopeful that President Eisenhower would, after the visit, bring back to the United States an understanding of the unanimous wishes of the Chinese people.
After the Summit Broke up
The Paris summit conference had broken up before it could get started. Superficially, Khrushchev who scuttled it might return to the old Stalinist line with greater determination. But what actually happened after the summit's failure is not so. Khrushchev's brutality at the summit is merely a gesture to serve multifarous purposes. To the Communist world, he pretended to have defied the United States. He has humiliated the President of the United States by demanding the latter's open apology for the U-2 plane incident. His refusal to attend the summit conference made Eisenhower's trip to Paris appear ridiculous. To the Russian army, he has displayed before Defense Minister Malinovsky's eyes the necessary toughness of the Kremlin's boss. To the Chinese Communists, he can now claim that he is even bolder than any Stalinist in picking quarrels with the West.
Moreover, by blaming the United States for the collapse of the summit, Khrushchev has not forgotten to playoff the American people against the Eisenhower administration. His declaration that the summit should be postponed by six or eight months was tantamount to saying that he will have nothing to do with Eisenhower before the election of a new President who is willing to comply with his wishes. Apparently, the declaration was aimed at creating an issue which will furnish the Democrats with ammunition to attack the Eisenhower administration.
As there are too many birds to be killed by one stone, it is very doubtful if Khrushchev has really satisfied any group of the dissentients. The plain fact is that having gone so far to "purge" Stalinism himself and having staked his position on a policy of relaxation, he just cannot reverse it overnight. His chauvinist display at the Paris summit will please the orthodox Communists only as long as he continues to follow the Stalinist line. And we do not think that Khrushchev can long afford to do so. As a matter of fact, the fire of his fury went out at the very moment when he arrived at East Berlin. We can bet that as soon as the American election is over, Khrushchev will return to his favorite theme of peaceful co-existence again, even if the new President of the United States might be Richard Nixon.
As far as the West is concerned, the collapse of the Paris conference is a blessing in disguise. For at least the brutality, insolence and perfidy which Khrushchev displayed at the Paris conference have unmasked the true nature of Communism and its implacable antagonism to the West. Now only a fool will still believe in the sincerity of Khrushchev's talk about peaceful coexistence. Even the most impartial observer will have now to concede that any proposal initiated by Khrushchev is merely a means to an end.
Besides, the collapse of the Paris summit conference has taught the West a valuable lesson. The idea of summitry which has been so much favored by Britain's Macmillan should be totally discarded. As a matter of fact, summitry is merely a revival of secret diplomacy. It is a renewal of power politics, reminiscent of those days when world affairs were decided by the Great Powers alone. There is no denying that summitry is against the spirit of the United Nations Charter. To a totalitarian country such as Soviet Russia, it may be welcomed as an excellent idea but to the leaders of the free world, it is really unthinkable to take part in a conference which is sure to reach agreement at the expense of the smaller nations.
From this point of view, therefore, summitry is a mistake made by the West from the very beginning. It has brought to the West nothing but the loss of prestige in the eyes of hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain who look up to the West for their eventual liberation. Indeed, as former Under Secretary of State Robert Murphy said: "Summitry is the least effective form of negotiation which has thus far been devised." In view of this fact, it is but logical that the West should rule out any proposal which Khrushchev might make for the next summit.
The First Miss China
The coronation of the first Miss China on June 5 provided a welcome relief from the monotonous routine of work, sleep and insipid movies that is the lot of many of us here. From a total of 192 fair damsels, after two months of preparations and waiting, and four contests in eight arduous evenings, the fairest of the fair was chosen and crowned. Her name is Miss Lin Ching-I, of Chiayi, Taiwan, a graduate of the Taipei Home Economics College This was a delightful event in spite of the failure of the summit meeting in Paris and the cold-hot war in the Taiwan Straits.
The proposal to hold an annual Miss China contest in Taiwan was first made several years ago. It was not accepted until last winter on account of opposition from certain quarters. This was because in China, unlike Europe and America, beauty contests had always been frowned upon. In medieval Europe, the election of a Queen of Love and of Beauty (la Reine de la Beauté et des Amours) occupied an important place in the tradition of chivalry. Her Majesty had the task of doing honor to the victorious champion of the lists. In England, the coronation of a May Queen formed an important part of the May festival; it also was an interesting and innocent form of recreation. The election of Miss America and Miss Universe is a recent development that is equally delightful and blameless.
In China, however, the history of beauty contests is a checkered one. Several centuries ago, infrequent contests were held by the Imperial Court to select a fair damsel to be the consort of the heir apparent, and other fair damsels to become ladies of the palace. However, during the half century from 1875 to 1925, a dubious practice flourished in Peiping and Shanghai, the election of a Queen of the Land of Flowers, later on changed to President of the Land of Flowers. As the reader may guess from the name, it was a beauty contest for courtesans. The contests attracted a great deal of popular attention, but they were also condemned by the conservative people. Owing to this bad beginning, the new proposal, first made several years ago, to hold an annual beauty contest to elect a Miss China, met with vigorous opposition.
But this opposition has now been overcome successfully. The contest held this year, resulting in the election and coronation of Miss Lin Ching-I, was conducted in a manner that displayed both dignity and impartiality. The panel of judges was a distinguished one that represented different professions and walks of life. They did their work with laudable zeal and competence. For this, the gentlemen who organized and managed this successful contest deserve our warm congratulation and commendation.