Santa Maria Times - Ex-resident is angry
The Santa Maria Times (12/ 20/78) published this article by Ed Beitiks: "If you had spent five years of your life on Taiwan, getting to know the people well, and you heard that the Taiwanese have been snubbed in favor of mainland China, chances are you'd be angry. And Marcia Coady is angry, no doubt about that.
"'My first reaction when I heard the news was, "My God, we're living in a Communist country,'" said Mrs. Coady, a resident of Orcutt. ‘I'm with Barry Goldwater: I think the men who made this decision are cowards. I think it was a cowardly act.'
"Mrs. Coady was mystified over the lack of a public outcry against the move. 'I want to know where all the Americans are who I went to school with in the 308 and 40s,' she said. 'We were taught that you've got to fear communism, that you can't hold hands with those people.'
"Mrs. Coady also shook her head over what's been said in the wake of President Carter's decision. They say there's no physical danger to the island of Taiwan,' she said. 'I don't know about that. They're printing in the papers that Taiwan hasn't been deserted, that everything will be all right. That's not true.'
"There has been too much animosity between the Communist regime on the mainland and the Taiwanese for things to go smoothly, explained Mrs. Coady. Officially, Taiwan is still in a state of war with mainland China, and the recovery of the mainland re mains the number one priority of the Taiwanese.
"Mrs. Coady's concern for Taiwan comes from the five years she and her husband, William, spent on the island from 1971 to 1976. Coady was civilian personnel director for all the armed forces on Taiwan, and his family came into contact with the people there on both official and unofficial levels.
"Looking back on those years after returning to the States, Mrs. Coady said, 'I'm really surprised by how little the American people know of Taiwan. They seem to think it's just a little island where people live in grass huts or something.'
"The truth is, said Mrs. Coady, that Taipei, the capital city, is every bit as sophisticated as large cities in this country and that the Taiwanese economy is strong enough to stand alone.
"'You know, we Americans are not really as indispensable in Taiwan as we think,' said Mrs. Coady. 'But what we've done will affect other countries which deal with Taiwan, and that's what will hurt them. Their economy may be in serious danger in the next five years.'
"Even with the economic threat hanging over their heads, the people of Taiwan are probably not all that bitter about the decision, added Mrs. Coady.
"'They’ve been expecting this for a long time,' she explained. 'It was continually being talked about, continually in the papers. I imagine that the people in Tai wan knew about this before either the Americans or the Chinese on the mainland.'
"Also, Mrs. Coady, added, 'I doubt if there's any real bitterness because the Chinese, inwardly, feel themselves to be superior to other people. I'm sure that today they're feeling very sorry for the American people because their government has done a very stupid thing.'
"The move came as no surprise, said Mrs. Coady, because the United States has been leading up to it, little by little. From smaller slights like not inviting the Taiwanese team to the Little League World Series to larger slights, like not supporting the Republic of China at the Olympics or in the United Nations, the United States has let its position be known.
"So when Taiwan lost out to mainland China, the reaction was probably more a shrug of the shoulders than a cry of outrage, Mrs. Coady explained.
"The Taiwan people, she said, 'Understand this 100 percent. They expected this. They know how Communists work. They knew how this would happen and why it would happen.'
"It is demoralizing, though, that the announcement should have come at this time, said Mrs. Coady.
"The future of Taiwan is a question mark now, said Mrs. Coady. For one thing, 'They won't give up Quemoy and Matsu without a fight,' nor will they give up their struggle to regain the mainland. Even now the Taiwan people do not accept the changes brought about by the Communists, such as switching the name of Peiping and Peking.
"'In Taiwan you order Peiping duck, you read of things that happen in Peiping,' said Mrs. Coady.
"The Taiwan people, added Mrs. Coady, 'believe, really believe, that they're going back to the mainland. And I believe it, too.'
"Daily the island's population of 17 million swells with refugees from the mainland, said Mrs. Coady. 'They continually flow into Taipei, and they don't have pretty stories to tell.' Official American recognition of mainland China won't change that, she added.
"The continuing struggle which Mrs. Coady predicts puts her in a precarious position. She and her husband had planned to retire to Taiwan and perhaps open an orphanage. But now 'it's hard to say what will happen.'
"Also, the family's two adopted daughters, Lin and Lisa, are not American citizens as yet, 'and now I don't know if I want them to get American citizen ship.''' (Partial text)
Washington Star - George Meany's view
The Washington Star (12/20/78) published this article by Lance Gay: "AFL-CIO President George Meany today sharply criticized the Carter administration's recognition of Communist China, saying that the changing foreign relations stand will undermine the way other nations view the United States.
"'President Carter undermined the credibility of the United States in its relations with other countries by unilaterally abrogating the U.S. treaty with the Re public of China on Taiwan,' Meany said in a statement.
"Other countries may well now wonder whether the United States can be relied upon to fulfill its treaty obligations and for how long. Certainly this action must give both the Israelis and the Egyptians food for thought.'
"Meany said that the People's Republic of China 'is one of the world's most repressive violators of human rights.' He said that the United States gained nothing by agreeing to resume full relations with mainland China.
"The central question is not whether the United States should have relations with mainland China - because it is impossible to ignore a country so large – but on the terms of that relationship,' Meany said. 'The AFL-CIO believes such terms should be in the best interest of the United States. However, the terms negotiated by President Carter are tantamount to total acquiescence to the demands of the People's Republic of China.'
"Meany's statement marked the strongest criticism yet by the labor federation of Carter ad ministration foreign policy initiatives, and it comes at a time when the AFL-CIO has become increasingly disenchanted with administration domestic policies.
"Meany has repeatedly taken a generally conservative stand on most foreign policy issues.
"'We can understand - although not approve of - the applause from the business community which is in search of quick profits no matter what the cost in human rights,' Meany said. 'What we cannot understand, however, is how this president, who made human rights a world issue, could so suddenly and callously reject the human rights concerns of both those enslaved in mainland China and those on Taiwan who fear such enslavement.'
"Nor can we be silent in the face of an inconstant foreign policy which makes this nation's word suspect in the world community. Without consultation with the American people, without open public debate so essential in a democratic society, President Carter has dealt away America's commitment and support for the independence and freedom of the Chinese on Taiwan. And he has received nothing in return - not even a pledge of non-aggression.'
"Meany met Monday with the ambassador from Taiwan here to discuss the AFL-CIO's concern over the administration's move." (Full text)
Washington Post - All cost, no benefit
The Washington Post (12/24/78) published this article by George Bush: "The tragic fact is that the price our government has paid in recognizing the People's Republic of China has not only diminished American credibility in the world but has also darkened the prospects for peace.
"... the critical question was the terms on which the recognition was negotiated. Incredibly, it turns out that the United States has now accepted all three of Peking's original demands - and has capitulated on its own demand for a guarantee on Taiwan, abandoning a faithful friend in the process. For the first time in our history, a peacetime American government has renounced a treaty with an ally without cause or benefit.
"By the administration's own admission, it never received - or even asked for - specific assurances from Peking about a peaceful solution to the Taiwanese question.
"The administration argues that Peking has neither the capability nor the incentive to conquer Taiwan. But any student of Chinese history - remembering that during the Cultural Revolution, only 10 years ago, some of today's Chinese leaders were driven down Peking streets with sticks - can properly ask: who knows with certainty what lies ahead? It is true that armed conquest by the mainland does not seem imminent, but because of unilateral action by the United States, the 17 million people on Taiwan are now hostage to the changing whims of the Peking leadership.
"The terms that the Carter administration has accepted, and even trumpeted, are the same terms that have been available for the past seven years. But they were always refused before be cause we knew - just as the Chi nese knew - that in the absence of sufficient guarantees, they were but a fig leaf for abject American retreat.
"The terrible truth is that the United States now stands exposed to the world as a nation willing to betray a friend - even when then: is no apparent gain.
"There is, of course, room for reasonable men to disagree about the benefits that might now accrue to (Red) China and the United States in trade and investment. Contrary to administration claims, however, I believe the gains that are likely to occur undoubtedly would have occurred anyway under our existing relationship.
"Over the past year and a half, before these negotiations had even begun, the Chinese (Communists) were ardently seeking western technology and our sales to (mainland) China were rising dramatically. Over the past four months the commercial pace has accelerated, and many American companies have begun making serious plans for trading with the mainland and investing there. But it has always been apparent in the commercial field that (Red) China needs us more than we need them. Indeed, it was precisely (Red) China's growing eagerness for trade that gave the United States greater leverage in our diplomatic bargaining than we had ever had before - leverage that we carelessly tossed aside.
"At its heart, however, the China question is not one of trade and technology but of fundamental morality and international strategy.
"As sociologist Peter Berger wrote earlier this year, 'If there is one universal, indeed primeval principle of morality, it is that one must not deliver one's friends to their enemies.' Berger was writing of refugees fleeing from Vietnam in their small, makeshift dinghies. 'These boats,' he said, 'bear a message. It is a simple and ugly message. Here is what happens to those who put their trust in the United States of America.'
"For President Carter, who professes a strong belief in Christian ethics, it should be a tormenting thought that by his hand, the United States has put an entire people adrift in a cruel, hostile sea - and for scarcely any purpose.
"The moral question is closely linked to the strategic issue that is causing perhaps even greater consternation in many chanceries of the world.
"Throughout the postwar period, American credibility joined with America's military might - halo been the glue that has held together the non-communist world. Justifiably, both friend and foe alike are now asking whether the United States can still be counted on to keep its word. Increasingly in recent years the United States has staked out a clear, unequivocal position, has invited others to join us, and then, as counter-pressures have built up, has suddenly, inexplicably buckled.
"In Africa, we committed ourselves to support the forces of moderation. But when black moderates in Rhodesia arranged with Prime Minister Ian Smith for the transfer of power and free elections, we threw in our lot with Marxist radicals.
"In recent negotiations in the Middle East, the Israelis announced that they were prepared to accept a final plan drafted with American help. But when Egypt raised the ante, we modified our position to accept the new Egyptian proposals, and when the Israelis refused to go along, we publicly kicked them in the shins.
"To friends of the United States, who have been chilled by these recent events and by our posture on SALT, the mindless abandonment of Taiwan thus comes at a particularly inopportune time. Why now? And why would the president act so unilaterally, without consulting with the Congress, especially after the Senate had insisted by a unanimous 94-to-0 vote upon such consultations? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers.
"The ultimate irony, then, of this 'normalization' is that (Red) China, whose primary interest lies in a strong, steadfast American presence in the world, has now seen just how easily we can be pushed around. The Chinese (Communists) realize that we have given all and gained nothing, and while they engage in self-congratulations, they know in their hearts that by our actions, we have also made the world a more dangerous place than it was only a few weeks ago." (Partial text)
Stars and Stripes - Confidence undermined
The Pacific Stars and Stripes(1/11/79) published this article by John B. Oakes: "The long-overdue normalization of relations between the United States and (Red) China is one of President Carter's foreign-policy spectaculars that, like the Camp David agreements, doesn't look quite so good once you read the fine print.
"In both cases, the president has attempted to sell these sensational developments to the public by overlooking or underplaying their inherent weakness and dangers. This tactic may appear politically smart (or normal) but it has the end result of undermining confidence in Carter's judgment.
"In the dramatic pronouncements on (Red) China - timed to avoid immediate criticism while Congress was not in session - all the benefits of normalization were of course emphasized. They range from readjustment of the power balance vs. the Soviet Union in Asia to juicy visions of multibillion dollar sugarplums dancing in the heads of American businessmen.
"But what was not emphasized is the price being paid for this new relationship that was bought by abrogating our defense treaty with Taiwan.
"No mention of the startling contrast between Carter's position on human rights and the application of those principles to the pragmatic demands of realpolitik in Asia.
"No mention of the effect on America's other allies of the cancellation of a defense treaty with a small nation to gain something we want from a large one.
"No mention of the effect of this 'scrap of paper' mentality on Japan, which heretofore has relied on the United States for its defense, or on Israel or on others dependent on us for their security.
"No mention, except for a slightly deceptive one, of the adverse effects on the strategic arms talks with the Soviet Union.
"No mention of self-determination, nor of the right of the people of Taiwan to decide for themselves whether they want to maintain the independence and relative freedom that they have enjoyed with substantial American help for the past quarter-century - or to be delivered into the protective custody of what is still one of the most totalitarian societies on earth.
"In an ironic twist of history, it is now (Red) China that is pushing the 'Open Door' policy to the West instead of vice-versa. Under the new directions set by Vice Premier Teng Hsiao-ping, it is (Red) China - desperate now for modernization and with the Soviet Union breathing down its neck - that needs the United States more than the United States need (Red) China.
"Yet, to achieve the mutually desired goal of normalization, it is the Americans rather than the Chinese (Communists) who have made the fundamental concession.
"In these circumstances, one doesn't have to be jingoistic ... when the highest American officials admit that their hopes for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan problem now rest not at all on an explicit promise to this effect by the Chinese Communists but solely and exclusively on their silence in response to American expressions of concern.
"The ultimate results of American deference to Communist China on Taiwan as the price of normalization may not be quite so beneficial for the United States as some of the best and the brightest minds in the administration (and outside of it, too) seem to think.
"That question is certainly arguable; but what is hardly arguable is that by taking the action he has now taken in the way he has taken it, President Carter has seriously undermined American pretensions to be the moral leader of the world and an exemplar of constancy and faithfulness to our friends." (Partial text)
Herald Tribune - Birth control failure
The Herald Tribune of Paris (12/9-10/78) published this article by Jay Mathews from Hong Kong: "For the first time in years, (Red) China has reported a significant failure in its birth control program, indicating that new economic policies may be aggravating the population crisis in the world's most populous country.
"An official radio broadcast from Kwangtung, the fifth-largest province, said that more than 100,000 births in excess of an official provincial plan were expected this year (1977). Analysts here who have followed (Red) China's regular reports of birth control successes in the last decade said this was the first time that the Chinese (Communists) had reported a significant birth rate increase anywhere.
'The radio added: 'The increase in population in excess of the plan will cause a number of problems in food, clothing, housing and transport, thus adversely affecting any rise in the people's living standard and delaying the four modernizations.'
"The resurgence of births in Kwangtung follows implementation of nationwide rural policies promising more income to peasant families who do more work. The policies provide an unintended incentive to produce bigger families. An analyst here observed that while production of grain may increase, the peasant will also be tempted to reason, 'My family can really get ahead if I produce a lot of strong children.'
"The Chinese (Communist) government is the first in history to try to administer about 1 billion persons. If it does not reconcile its drive to increase food production with its need to reduce births, living standards can be expected to stagnate or decline, and modernization plans to be hampered severely.
" ... The Kwangtung broadcast and some articles have blamed lingering rural tradition for the failure to cut birth rates more quickly.
"But several recent articles criticizing officials for interfering too much in peasant life may have contributed to failures such as Kwangtung's. The articles chided officials for interfering with peasant decisions on what crops to plant. They may well have discouraged local leaders from disciplining people who refused to practice birth control.
"In the past, families sometimes found that free medical and other service might be denied to their third or fourth child, a harsh measure that contrasts with the new, relaxed atmosphere that the post-Mao leadership is trying to encourage.
"The broadcast from Kwangtung, monitored here on Sunday, hinted at a conflict between birth control and other policies when it complained that 'some places have set implementing the rural economic policies against implementing the policy of Planned Parenthood, and have relaxed leadership of this work.'
"Kwangtung, a large province along the South China coast with its capital at Canton, has about 50 million people, most of them peasants. The broadcast said that until this year's reversal, the population growth rate had dropped from 29.4 per thousand in 1965 to 12.6 per thousand last year (1977).
"In February, (Chinese) Communist Party Chairman Hua Kuo-feng announced a national goal of reducing the growth rate to less than 10 per thousand within three years. This seemed possible in some urban areas. Shanghai, the most populous city in (mainland) China, has the world's lowest reported birthrate, only 6 per thousand.
"But foreign population analysts guessed that the growth rates were much higher in many rural areas, where the Chinese (Communists) have been reluctant to release figures. (Red) China has not conducted an official census since the early 19 50s. Foreign experts estimate the total population at between 900 million and more than 1 billion.
"The Kwangtung broadcast blamed much of the birth rate increase on leaders who set a bad example themselves. For instance, five of the principal leaders of a county party committee in Meihsien have produced five or more children since 1973. Two have produced a sixth child and one a seventh.
"The growth rate in that county was expected to jump from 13.46 per thousand in 1976 to 19 per thousand this year (1978), the broadcast said. In a commune where a leading official just had his seventh child the birth rate was 26.94 per thousand last year (1977) and would climb to 30 per thousand this year (1978)." (Partial text)