Several Taipei newspapers of June 26 strongly disputed June 22 editorial comments of the New York Times on U.S. policy toward Peiping.
The Cheng Hsin Daily News said: "Recently and especially since the start of President Johnson's strenuous efforts to end the Vietnam war, an international countercurrent of Chinese Communist appeasement has emerged. Some political leaders, intellectuals and opinion makers advocate expanded trade with the Red Chinese and Peiping's admission to the United Nations. We cannot explain this phenomenon but regard it as a strong trend toward masochistic appeasement. Japanese Foreign Minister Takeo Miki, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, U.N. Secretary General U Thant and some U.S. newspapers, including the New York Times, may be responsible.
"These international figures have refused to heed historical experience and face the facts. They consider appeasement as an objective rather than as a way to attain an objective. The trend is masochistic, because the appeasers, their countries and the free and democratic system they uphold have long been hated, abused and attacked by the Chinese Communists. However, they take this as a matter of course and callously respond with smiles of cajolery. They even help the enemy attain his goal of world domination and the enslavement of mankind. Isn't this the psychology of masochism?
"We do not need to refute these advocacies. Responsible and rational people cannot be confused. In the past, such advocacies have called for containing but not isolating Peiping, for facing the fact that the Chinese Communists control the mainland with its 700 million people. The appeasers think Red Chinese isolation increases the danger of war and that Peiping's entry into the international community would contribute to world peace. These arguments are refuted by the facts. Those with similar ideas have repeated the old cliches without advancing anything new or convincing."
The Chung Hua Jih Pao (China Daily News) said: "The New York Times seeks to bend down its knee before the Tien An Men (Gate of Heavenly Peace) and ask forgiveness. That is its own business. But what right has it to say that President Lyndon B. Johnson has hinted that 'the United States is considering urging a withdrawal of President Chiang Kai-shek's forces from the offshore island of Quemoy and Matsu'? Whether President Johnson has considered this is his business. But Quemoy and Matsu are territories of the Republic of China. If our ally should suggest abandoning these islands, she would be interfering in our domestic affairs and seriously offending our national sovereignty. The paper seems to believe that we would retreat from these islands if the United States asked us to. Could anything be more arbitrary and ridiculous? In international usage nothing could be more rude and offensive."
The Economic Daily News said: "The Chinese Communists have ceaselessly encouraged racial struggle in the United States for a long time. Mao has repeatedly urged support of the Negro's 'righteous struggle against American imperialism and racial discrimination', and told Negroes that 'only by overthrowing the reactionary rule of the American capitalist monopolistic class' can they win total victory. He wants the Negroes to 'seize power by armed struggle and solve their problem by war'. Isn't the New York Times' proposal of 'holding open the door' the same as inviting the wolf to enter, either out of ignorance or on purpose? The newspaper owes it to the American people to answer this question.
"The New York Times' idea of 'holding open the door' seems to be an effort to appease the Chinese Communists so they can emerge from their 'dangerous isolation' and participate in international affairs. It is shocking that the paper should totally disregard the consequences of the British and French opening of doors to the Red Chinese. De Gaulle recognized Peiping and gave the Chinese Communists opportunity to instigate riots by French students and strikes by workers. The newspaper notes that the U.S. government has shown some friendly attitudes toward Peiping, including invitations to Red Chinese journalists to cover the American elections, a call for closer contacts and hints that the trade embargo may be ended. Yet at the same time the paper accuses Washington of not pursuing any pro-Peiping measures. This contradictory, illogical editorial is really speaking for the Chinese Communists.
"The New York Times editorial mentions 'a billion Chinese, armed with nuclear weapons'. This seems to imply that the danger of Chinese Communist aggression cannot be averted except by taking a pro-Communist stand. The paper does not understand that the 700 million or even a billion people of the mainland - excepting a few Chinese Communist diehards - are enemies of the Peiping regime. Widespread anti-Mao and anti-Communist struggles on the mainland are convincing evidence of this."
Central Daily News - Thoughts for Trudeau
Commenting on Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's statement on Peiping recognition, the Chung Yang Jih Pao (Central Daily News) of June 28 said recognition would give the Chinese Communists opportunity to stir up trouble for the Canadian government.
The paper said: "China's Ambassador to Canada Hsueh Yu-chih has repeatedly stressed that 'two Chinas' are unacceptable.
"The Communists use racial disturbances as a cover for subversive activities. As soon as the Communists get into Canada, they will take advantage of the unrest in Quebec. Peiping's support of the French student riots shows what would happen.
"Two absurd theories regarding Red China have recently come to the fore: (1) that the Chinese Communists effectively control the mainland and (2) that the 700 million people living there must not be neglected. Both contentions ignore the fact that the Communist regime has been deteriorating politically and socially since 1966.
"The Republic of China looks upon Canada as a friend and ally. It is our responsibility to overthrow the Chinese Communist regime. We do not want our Canadian friends to help the enemy and damage our mutual interest."
New Life Daily News - Imperative of victory
The Shin Sheng Pao (New Life Daily News) said July 1 that only military victory in Vietnam can assure success of the Paris peace talks.
The paper said: "The Paris peace talks have been going on for about eight weeks. The United States has been very patient in its attempt to obtain concrete results. However, Hanoi still insists that the United States must stop bombing North Vietnam before substantive negotiations.
"The military situation in Vietnam is the chief factor in determining what happens at Paris. The United States cannot expect North Vietnamese concessions without winning a military victory.
"On the eve of the American elections, President Johnson is unlikely to make any decisive moves. The war and the peace talks are stalemated. Although the United States cannot afford to let the war drag on indefinitely, President Johnson thinks he must stabilize the Vietnam situation until his successor takes over.
"The peace talks are a Communist tactic. The objectives are to alienate South Vietnam from the United States, intensify U.S. internal divisions and provide a smokescreen for the reinforcing of the Communist military position in South Vietnam.
"History is a good teacher. General Marshall's mission to China more than 20 years ago led to mainland tragedy. The Chinese Communists used the cover of the peace talks, to expand their forces.
"Some Americans have tried to appease Peiping in the hope the Chinese Reds will not interfere at Paris. These Americans still know nothing about the Chinese Communists.
"The New York Times has even advocated a betrayal of Kinmen and Matsu. Appeasement can never change the Chinese Communist determination to bury the United States."
Cheng Hsin Daily News - First-priority target
The Cheng Hsin Daily News said July 8 that the United States should first eliminate Peiping as a part of the long struggle against Russia.
The paper said: "Since the Paris peace talks began, Russo-American relations have thawed significantly. The signing of the treaty to prevent nuclear proliferation is a Russo-American measure aimed at Peiping. Moscow quickly released the Americans who landed in the Kurile Islands. President Johnson will probably visit Russia.
"However, Russian cooperation with the United States will be limited. The Russians have to keep in mind their position of Communist leadership.
"In overall strategy, Moscow assumes an anti-Peiping policy in Asia while seeking to prevent U.S. capitalist influence from penetrating Eastern Europe. Czechoslovakia's 'democratic tendencies' have forced Moscow to station troops along the Czech border. Travel restrictions imposed on West Germany and West Berlin represent a Russian frontal attack on the United States. Basic Russo-American contradictions cannot be eliminated.
"Most U.S. policymakers hope to line up Russia against Peiping. Some leftist appeasers want to help Peiping resist Russia. Their objective is a balance of power between Moscow and Peiping. The recent addresses of U.S. Undersecretary of State Katzenbach imply an offer of improved relations with Peiping. However, the basic policy of Peiping is to attack the Russian revisionists and bury the United States.
"The Paris peace talks have been in progress for seven weeks. The only achievement is prolongation of the 'coffee time' to 42 minutes. Even if U.S. withdrawal from Khe San and Viet Cong suspension of rocket attacks on Saigon were negotiated during the coffee break, the fundamental issues cannot be solved there.
"Moscow agreed to the Paris talks because it wanted to replace Peiping as principal adviser to Hanoi and not because of any real desire for peace in Vietnam. The United States cannot gain an honorable settlement in Vietnam through cooperation with Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Rusk is pessimistic about the peace talks because of his doubts about Russian sincerity.
"It is to be hoped that the United States will adopt a policy based on its long-term interest. It should first eliminate the Peiping regime as a part of the long struggle against Russia. Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and Malaysia then will be secure and Moscow can do nothing in Asia."
China Daily News - Sato's election victory
The Chung Hua Jih Pao (China Daily News) said July 8 that the election victory of Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato and his Liberal-Democratic Party assures continuation of Japan's pro-Western policies.
The paper said: "The results of the Japanese Upper House election indicate that Prime Minister Eisaku Sato continues to hold the confidence of the Japanese people. The Socialists used the Vietnam war and Japan's trade policy against the Liberal-Democrats. However, the Liberal-Democrats increased their majority in the Upper House. This shows the Japanese people reject leftist radicalism.
"The Japanese-American Mutual Security Treaty was a principal campaign issue. Socialists and Communists advocated termination of the treaty in 1970. The Liberal-Democrats supported renewal of the pact and Sato's victory seems to assure this as well as a peaceful and prosperous future for Japan.
"Japanese Socialists and Communists also wanted more trade with the Chinese Reds and even advocated recognition of Peiping. Sato's decision to honor the Yoshida Letter barring government-guaranteed trade credits for the Chinese Communists won the backing of the Japanese people."
Commenting on the same subject, the English-language China News said: "Japan's Liberal-Democratic Party has won a substantial victory over the leftists in the Upper House election.
"The Japanese people thus have indicated (1) that they do not want Communism or closer relations with Communists and (2) that they want to continue the close ties of friendship and defense with the United States.
"It was the prospect of this election that led some leaders of the LDP to talk of an opening to the left that would have included increased trade and the possibility of a political relationship with the Chinese Communists.
"Prime Minister Eisaku Sato has already indicated that some of his underlings went too far in their questioning of the Yoshida Letter, which pledges Japan not to extend government-guaranteed trade credits to Peiping. Sato has said that the Japanese government will abide by the Yoshida Letter and will not alter its policy of separating economics from politics in the relationship with the Chinese Communists.
"This should open the way to closer ties between Japan and the Republic of China in politics, economics, and social and cultural matters.
"The ROC government has always hoped that Japan would become more active in the defense of free Asia. Prime Minister Sato need no longer hesitate to move in that direction."
China News - Anti-missile system
The English-language China News of June 28 urged the United States to help build an anti-missile defense system in Taiwan.
The paper said: "The Republic of China has warned members of the United Nations against over-reliance on the Security Council in the event of nuclear aggression.
"The wheels of the Council grind exceedingly slow - and sometimes too late or not at all. Membership of the Soviet Union assures built-in procrastination about everything.
"Only once in history did the Security Council act forthrightly and without delay. That was on the occasion of the North Korean march into South Korea just 18 years ago.
"There was a special reason for that triumph of justice. The Soviet Union had walked out of the Council in a huff and was not present. There has been no repetition of that U.S.S.R. error of judgment.
"If there is nuclear aggression, it can come only from the Communists - and most probably from the Peiping regime.
"This island province of the Republic of China is in particular danger. Geography makes it easier for the Chinese Communists to hit Taiwan than any other target in the world.
"Furthermore, Mao Tse-tung is dedicated to two supreme objectives: the seizure of Taiwan and the waging of nuclear war against the world in a bid for Chinese Communist hegemony.
"When Mao is ready for nuclear showdown, he will require a test target and Taiwan is the obvious choice.
"Of what reliance would be the Security Council in such an eventuality? Taiwan would go up in a cloud of nuclear debris while the Council debated and the Soviet Union charged it was all a plot of our government to embarrass the Communists.
"For that matter, what could the Republic of China expect from the pledge of the Soviet Union to protect non-nuclear nations from nuclear aggression? The thought of the Russians acting to restrain Peiping from attacking Taiwan is ridiculous.
"Taiwan must depend solely on the United States in the event of Chinese Communist nuclear aggression. If the Americans waited for the outcome of United Nations deliberations, Taiwan would be obliterated. The United States knows this and we cannot believe there would be any hesitation or useless reliance on the U.N.
"In the special situation of the Republic of China, reliance on reprisal is not sufficient.
"Taiwan should have an anti-missile system constructed with the assistance of the United States, which plans a system of its own to guard against attack from the Chinese mainland.
"If the continental United States is endangered - or will be - the peril to this province is many times greater.
"Installation of missile defenses on Taiwan would cost a small fraction of the billions that the United States plans to spend on anti-missile missiles. Furthermore, our low labor costs would make the installation economical. Taiwan terrain is ideally suited to the locating of interception missiles that would be almost impossible to pinpoint.
"Taiwan will be living under the shadow of the world's most imminent nuclear threat until such a defense system is in place."