Addressing myself to the subject of ''The Chinese attitude toward the United States," I shall have to deal, quite naturally, with the position of the Republic of China, whose seat of administration is in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, the 35th province of the country. My discussion will also cover the attitude of the Chinese Communist regime in Peiping. Its cardinal policy of enmity toward the United States has been well known. But this did not receive much attention in recent years as conscientious attempts were made to wind down the Vietnam War. To the contrary, "ping-pong" diplomacy brought about a euphoria far beyond the reality.
To us of the Republic of China, the rampancy of Communism on the mainland of China is a great tragedy in Chinese history. It is also a misfortune to the free countries and territories adjacent to China. Its insidious effects on their security and freedom and on the United States position in East Asia and the Western Pacific are being felt gradually, and their possible consequences have yet to be carefully anticipated and appropriately forestalled.
Admittedly, the present international situation is rather confusing - confusing not only to an average person in the street but also to the academic people as well as those in high chancelleries. Accepted principles and values in international relations are subject to doubt and some of them have given way to newer but questionable notions. Alignments of the recent past are losing their cohesive quality and the lines between friends and adversaries have appeared to be dim. It seems that the international situation is more confusing to the free world than to the members of the so-called Communist camp, which in spite of their differences and fraternal conflicts are pursuing their objectives as steadfastly as ever before. By and large the free world has given the impression that it has lost sight of the basic ideological conflict between freedom and Communist tyranny and is too eager to talk of compromise and accommodation as such terms are understood in the West.
Schooled by the exigencies of the rigorous international life and induced to take counsel from the painful experience we had in our dealings with the Communists since the early 1920's when China was earmarked as the target .for their subversion, my government has to remain vigilant and cannot allow itself the luxury of making light of any Communist gesture like, for instance, the "smiling diplomacy" occasionally practiced by Peiping. We perceive that, fundamentally speaking, the international community today is locked in the struggle between two political forces: the democratic order based on national freedom and human dignity and the Communist system based on totalitarian rule, regimentation and the concentration of state power in the hands of a few but in the name of the people. The democratic order is headed by the United States and the Communist system by the Soviet Union. It is so by virtue of the very nature of this struggle and of the still pervading bipolar structure of power irrespective of contrary claims such as, for example, the attitude of the Chinese Communists toward Moscow on account of their rift and of some countries in the Third World which have shown visible tendencies toward non alignment or neutralism while remaining beneficiaries under the American aegis.
My government stands firm on the side of freedom of the international watershed and is irrevocably committed to the cause of democracy. The government of the United States is the leader of the free world and we are proud to have associated with it constantly. This relationship is a natural one with a long history due to certain sympathetic responses and affinities, and there is nothing artificial about it.
The friendly relations between our two countries are almost as old as this great republic. They are characterized by cordiality and cooperation and mutual devotion to certain lofty principles governing international intercourse. The fact that the United States stands for justice and had played time and again the role of a good Samaritan when we faced difficulties due to foreign threats and aggressions has earned for itself the abiding gratitude of the Chinese people. When we meditate and reflect upon the history of Sino-American relations, it is not difficult to come to the realization that the close cooperation of our two countries in international efforts intended to contribute to a better world order is not accidental. We of the Republic of China are inclined to attach great significance to such facts as continuous traditional friendship, being allies in two world wars and a common bond in the form of the Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1954, making our two countries active allies.
A few illustrations of the American solicitude for our welfare are perhaps in order. The United States initiative in the pronouncement of the Open Door Policy in 1899 and 1900, the remission of the unused portion of the American share of the Boxer Indemnity authorized by the Congress in 1908, the encouragement to our leaders when the Republic was being formed in 1912, the declaration of policy in 1915 deprecating the Japanese Twenty-one Demands on China, the assistance and good offices rendered to us a t the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and the Washington Conference in 1921-1922, the Stimson Doctrine of nonrecognition of the Japanese conquest of Manchuria in 1932, the generous military and economic aid given to us during and subsequent to World War II, and the security treaty against Communist aggression just referred to are actions of high statesmanship. They are greatly appreciated by my government and people.
This narrative shows clearly the reciprocal friendly feelings between our two countries. Our governments and peoples are cooperating closely in many fields - in cultural interchange as a whole, in science and technology, and in trade and investment. You might like to know that our two countries are natural trade partners, although the difference between our economies is so enormous. According to current statistics, the Republic of China ranks 12th in all the nations trading with the United States. On the average 32 per cent of our exports go to the U.S., from which comes 30 per cent of our imports. Figures published by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that the two-way trade between our two countries for the first three quarters of this year (1975) amounted to US$2,615 million, while the two-way trade of this country with the Chinese mainland for the said period was merely US$303.8 million, less than one-eighth of the total with Taiwan.
It is of interest to note that the leading position in our foreign trade was occupied by Japan. Then in the summer of last year the situation changed after a year and a half of conscientious efforts on our part to buy more goods and services from this country even though the price levels are not very favorable. Mutual cooperation and appreciation are also manifest in other endeavors like investment, banking and joint business ventures. Today in Taiwan many big American companies have subsidiary enterprises and eight leading American banks maintain branch offices. American investments in Taiwan up to the end of last year (1974) stand at US$428,878,000. These investments carry with them a clear implication that this great country has confidence in us and in our future.
Contrary to the friendly sentiments traditionally existing between our two countries, the Chinese Communists have called the United States an "arch enemy" and have continuously carried on, though with various degrees of intensity and subtleness, the "Hate American Campaign." In the course of the dialogue initiated by "ping-pong diplomacy" the themes have changed somewhat, but the virulent substance is still there. Since the Chinese Communists are un-Chinese in their thinking and attitudes, it is imperative to inquire into their dogmas and the reasons behind their hostile attitudes toward this country.
Aside from the basic Communist doctrines such as "anti-imperialism ," "world revolution ," "united front" and so forth, the most fundamental tenets of the foreign policy of the Peiping regime have been what Mao Tse-tung called "Lean to one side" and "Enmity with the United States." "Lean to one side" means to fall or incline to the side of "socialism" as postulated in the teachings of Marxism-Leninism with no room for neutralism. According to Mao Tse-tung, "neutralism is a camouflage and the third road does not exist." The rationale for its hostility toward the United States is that this country is the very embodiment of capitalism and the strongest country in the world. As the leader of the Free World this country is ipso facto the main obstacle to world revolution. For these reasons the Peiping regime has regarded it as the natural enemy of the Communist camp. Furthermore, such a posture tends to give the regime leadership and prestige in the Communist world as well as among some developing nations. It also lends itself to the concealment of the regime's weaknesses. For internal reasons alone, Peiping needs an enemy, real or imaginary; a war psychosis is always a convenient instrument for political control in a totalitarian regime.
Enmity with the United States has been expressed in many forms, not only in propaganda but also in actions violating American diplomatic and consular prerogatives. Suffice it to say that as early as 1945 before VJ Day, the Chinese Communists have persistently engaged in propaganda against this country and have perpetrated acts insulting to a sovereign nation. The house arrest of Angus Ward, American consul-general in Mukden in 1948; the molestation of the American consular officers in Shanghai and Tientsin in 1949; and the forced entry of Chinese Communist troops into the bedroom of Ambassador Leighton Stuart at the U.S. Embassy in Nanking early on the morning of April 25 that year, are some of the illustrations in point. It would sound surprising to an average American citizen that the United States, along with Western Europe and Canada, is listed in their blueprints for Communist takeover to be subjugated like big cities after the countrysides have been occupied.
A question may be posed here. Has Peiping changed its attitude toward the United States since the initiation of the dialogue or detente between Washington and Peiping? The answer seems to be in the negative. On April I, 1974, more than two years after the Shanghai communique, Chou En-lai declared that "the revolutionary people do not at all believe in so-called 'lasting peace' or 'a generation of peace.'" "So long as imperialism exists," he continued, "revolution and war are inevitable." Chou was referring to and quoting the words of Mr. Nixon. As regards detente, Chou En-lai in his Political Report to the so-called Fourth National People's Congress held in January (1975) claimed that· "detente and peace are being talked about everywhere in the world; it is precisely this that shows there is no detente, let alone lasting peace, in the world."
Today the United States and the Soviet Union remain the major adversaries of the Chinese Communist regime. If there is any change at all in its estimation of them as evidenced in official documents, it may perhaps be found in the relative positions of these two countries. When the names of these two adversaries are put together, it is likely that the Soviet Union would be given first mention. As indicated in his Political Report to the Tenth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party held in August, 1973, Chou En-lai stated that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are "contending for hegemony" and that their struggle for supremacy "is the cause of world intranquillity." He asserted, among other things', that they both had experienced failures and were in "sorry plight." "Beset with trouble internally and externally," they "find the going tougher and tougher." "U.S. imperialism started to go downhill after its defeat in the war of aggression against Korea. It has openly admitted that it is increasingly on the decline; it cannot but pull out of Vietnam." As expected, Chou En-lai repeated this theme with added emphasis in his Political Report to the "Fourth National People's Congress," asserting that the contention for world hegemony between the two superpowers "is bound to lead to world war some day." He described the international situation as "still characterized by great disorder" and maintained that these two countries "are the biggest international oppressors and exploiters today and they are the source of a new world war."
The debacle in South Vietnam and the withdrawal of American military presence therefrom have given the Chinese Communists much material for propaganda. They took these events as a clear vindication of their policy and assertions. In spite of the current dialogue between Peiping and Washington, which the Chinese Communist leadership needs and has thus far fully utilized as a lever in its relations with the Soviet Union, it has never ceased its invective denunciation against this country. This is clearly seen in Chinese Communist publications in January, 1975, such as the speech of Yu Chiu-li, "vice premier" of the "state council," before a meeting of industrial and transportation workers in Shanghai; the address of Chiang Ching, wife of Mao Tse-tung, to Chinese Communist diplomatic functionaries above the consul level in March, 1975; and the speech of Chiao Kuan-hua, Peiping's "foreign minister," before a group of Chinese Communist cadres above Grade 13 in May, 1975.
It warrants special mention that the "Mayaguez Incident" concerning what is claimed to be an intrusion by an American ship into Cambodian territorial waters on May 12, 1975, had given rise to a violent campaign against the United States. In the course of such attacks, Mao Tse-tung's statement of May 20, 1970, entitled "The People of the World United Together to Defeat the U.S. Aggressor and Its Running Dogs," was republished and quoted extensively throughout the Chinese mainland. This title alone would give an idea that the statement is extremely vitriolic. When the Chinese Communists lampoon "detente" and attack "hegemony," they are not merely aiming at the Soviet Union.
The attitude of the U.S. government is of course most pertinent to us. In the spring of this year (1975) President Ford made many statements to convey the intention that the United States "must continue to support security against aggression and subversion, and that," in his words, "our national security and the integrity of our alliance depend upon our reputation as a reliable partner." Addressing the convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16 in Washington, D.C., he stated that the United States valued the relationship between it and the Republic of China and that the United States considered this relationship "as a matter of very, very great importance." In response to a question on the foreign policy of this country in 1976, an election year, at his nationally televised press conference on May 16, he said that it was his aim "to tie more closely together South Korea with the United States, to affirm our commitment to Taiwan, to work more closely with Indonesia, with the Philippines and other Pacific nations."
My government and people appreciate highly these solemn protestations of fidelity; we are encouraged in our endeavor to build a strong bastion for defense and a free society in East Asia. We on our part stand ready to discharge our obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty and to further develop our capacity as a force for stability and as a symbol of freedom. The continuous dialogue between Washington and Peiping, however, has given us cause for concern in spite of our confidence in the United States. We have no doubt in the given words of the United States and for this reason it is not expected that there will be any crisis of confidence.
While we try to understand Peiping's stand vis-a-vis the United States, it is also desirable to inquire into the conditions on the Chinese mainland - the strikes and upheavals now happening in widely scattered areas and the generally unsettled, restive conditions among the people and among the military personnel due to suppression, factional strife and the cumulative effect of destruction and disaster. In fact, the prevailing conditions have strongly suggested that the first phase of the struggle for succession has already begun.
In these circumstances any civil gesture or accommodation from the free world would tend to help the regime to strengthen its control of the people and enchance its prestige in the international community. It would also have an injurious effect on the government of the Republic of China, which has developed in Taiwan a viable free society and has clearly demonstrated that there is an alternative to the Communist system of dictatorship and collectivized economy so arbitrary, oppressive and wasteful of material and human resources.
Editor's note: This article is based on a recent speech of the Republic of China's ambassador to the United States.