"A Land with a Future"
"Communist China is an example of a country that has achieved economic progress through the complete suppression of the basic freedoms. Free China, in making its gains in all fields of activity, is making the right move by its conscious efforts to preserve the rights and freedoms of its people."
This is a statement made by Mr. Masaru Ogawa, editor in chief of the Japan Times, who recently made a 12-day visit to Free China with a delegation of 14 Japanese journalists.
Writing in a series of three articles published in the Times on March 1, 3 and 4, Ogawa said Free China is "a land with a future." He pointed out that there are in Free China "signs of youthful vitality, stability, progress, and of purpose. Above all there is in Free China the willingness to face the facts of life - a factor essential to any nation planning a future."
The American-educated Japanese journalist said he found young men with drive and imagination assuming positions of responsibility at all levels of activity on Taiwan. He named 41-year-old Dr. Sampson Shen, director of the Chinese Government Information Office; 44-year-old Yu Kuo-hwa, head of the Central Trust of China which handles among other things trade with Japan; 46-year-old Jerome Sinnan Hu, manager of the huge Kaohsiung Refinery of the China Petroleum Corporation; and 48-year-old Hu Chiu-yuan, leading theorist for the Kuomintang.
Ogawa noted all the Cabinet ministers under President Chiang Kai-shek are still in their 50's. He said Foreign Minister George Yeh, for all of his long experience and distinguished role in the diplomatic field, is only 54. And General Wang Shu-ming, chief of the general staff, also 54, has not lost the youthful exuberance and toughness he brought with him from the countryside of Shantung Province.
"The average age of the commanders in chief of the Army, Navy, and Air Force Headquarters is only 51."
"The military force itself is today well-balanced with veterans and new recruits. According to 'Tiger' General Wang, the average age in the armed forces is now 25-½ years."
"All evidence points to the fact that Free China has been succeeding in its efforts to put fresh blood into its political, military and professional setup."
Besides being impressed by the ability of Free China to rejuvenate itself through placing of young men in positions of responsibility, Ogawa also noted the presence in Taiwan of a relaxed atmosphere and a general feeling of stability.
"One fortunate thing about Taiwan," he said, "is that it faces no food problem. Rice, for instance, can be harvested at least twice a year and in some places three times. A pound of rice costs about NT$2."
"Without this potential source of instability," Ogawa said, "great strides are being made to build up the island's industries."
He went to the manufacturing belt centering around Kaohsiung in southern Taiwan and specifically to such industrial plants as the Taiwan Sugar Corporation, China Petroleum Corporation, Taiwan Cement Corporation and the Tang Eng Iron Works. There, new machinery, equipment and know-how are being installed and utilized to speed up production, he reported.
Together with the expansion of industrial plants, a large-scale agricultural reform program has been instituted, Ogawa noted.
He said the result is that 320,000 families of tenant farmers now own the land they till. He quoted Shen Shih-ko, director of Land Bureau of the Taiwan Provincial Government, as saying: 'The policy of giving land to the tillers was succeeding without being accompanied by disc on ten t because the former landowners had been encouraged to invest in industrial plants.'
"There is no doubt that the agricultural and industrial production has achieved a tremendous revival during the past eight years. And it is not without reason that Free China should boast of a living standard second only to Japan in the Far East."
Touching upon freedom of the press in Free China, Ogawa said: "To say that there is complete freedom of the press in Free China would not be true. But within limits the freedom allowed the press is quite impressive."
"For one thing," he said, "there is no censorship in Free China."
"One Japanese newspaperman asked how long the censors would take in checking his copy for Tokyo. There was some embarrassment when he was told that the censors did not exist."
According to a foreign correspondent stationed in Taipei, Ogawa reported, foreign correspondents are given complete freedom of movement in going about their jobs and in writing as they please.
Ogawa said: "Chinese editors whom we met in informal talks said they are not under any pressure from the authorities and given the freedom in principle to write and print whatever they desire. They emphasized the fact, however, that all of them without exception supported Free China's struggle against Communism and that their editorial policy was attuned to that fact. 'If you call that control,' one editor said, 'then it is entirely voluntary and self-imposed.'''
The Japanese journalist also quoted Nancy Yu, publisher of the English-language China Post, as saying: 'The situation with regard to freedom of the press has improved tremendously since the first hectic days nine years ago when the National Government moved to Taiwan.'
"According to her," Ogawa said, "the refusal of the International Press Institute to admit Free China was most likely based on information gathered at that time. The situation is entirely different today."
"The wonder of Free China is not that freedom of the press and information has been limited in a few cases but that there is so much freedom," Ogawa concluded.
Chou's Resignation
Commenting on Chou En-lai's resignation as Red China's 'foreign minister,' the Oakland Tribune on January 12 said: "Just what the Chinese Communists had in mind for the future when the decision was made for Chou En-lai to give up his job as 'foreign minister' and concentrate on being 'prime minister' - a shift that put General Chen Yi as 'foreign minister' - is something that will require a concentrated study. Any snap judgment on what the change portends would be precarious as a base upon which to look at the future."
However, the paper said: "If the end of the line should come for Mao Tse-tung, it would be either Chou En-lai or Liu Shao-chi who would be the two prime candidates to take over the chairmanship of the Chinese Communist Party. It cannot be said with any degree of accuracy at this time that either has the advantage, but this relationship could have a connection with the changes in the Red regime."
Regarding the appointment of Chen Yi, the paper said: "It would seem reasonable to suppose he was made 'foreign minister" only to serve in a puppet role, with Chou En-lai as 'premier' continuing to call every turn."
"Chen Yi is primarily a military man. He has never made any impressive record as either a negotiator or an administrator," the paper added.
The Scotsman believed that Chou quitted his "foreign minister" post in order to attend to the precarious economy of Red China. In an editorial on February 12, the paper said:
"The indications are that Chou En-lai's replacement as 'foreign minister' of Red China is not a dismissal. He remains prime minister. There might, of course, have been some disagreement with Mao Tse-tung, and this procedure might have been adopted for face-saving purposes. But there has been no indication of this, and it seems unlikely....
"There is one general fact that might account for the change. It is presented as part of a wider change affecting several 'ministries'.
"Red China is at the moment facing a very sticky period of economic development and reorganization. It may well be that Chou En-lai is going to devote himself to the enormous problems of building up industry with very limited capital - and very limited help from Russia - in a country with a fantastic annual increase of population.
"It is certain that this is a much bigger worry for Peiping than the political discontent which emerged so strongly during the period last year when public criticism was allowed. If Red China's precarious economy got out of control, the hold of the Communist regime would be shaken."
The Glasgow Herald in an editorial on the same day said that Chou's active possession of the premiership will keep him fully occupied with cutting out waste and bureaucracy and with overhauling the administrative system of the puppet regime.
Regarding Red China's foreign policy, the paper said: "While Mao Tse-tung remains in control, Chinese diplomacy is unlikely to swerve from the present course."
Troop Withdrawal From Korea
Marvin Liebman, secretary of the Committee of One Million in the United States, said on February 20 that Peiping's announcement to withdraw its troops from Korea was prompted by the "great unrest that continues on the Chinese mainland" since the troops are needed back home to keep the restive mainlanders in check.
The Committee's statement read: "Revolts against the Peiping regime in Tibet and among the Moslem population, anti-Communist activities and demonstration by students, growing anti-Communist sentiments among intellectuals, have made it imperative to keep as many troops as are available on the mainland to help quell what the Peiping regime fears might become a general uprising similar to the Hungarian revolution."
The majority of American papers also warned the United States to beware of the trick Peiping played in its unilateral offer.
The New York Times in its February 20 editorial said: "In view of the long record of Communist perfidy this announcement is being greeted with healthy skepticism. But there may be good reasons for it - among them, the atomic weapons of the. United Nations forces, the growing Soviet-Red Chinese rivalry in North Korea, which has reduced its population from 9,000,000 to some 3,500,000, and a possible desire by Peiping to purge itself of the United Nations' condemnation of its aggression as a step toward United Nations membership."
The Christian Science Monitor on February 24 said: "Notwithstanding the apparently tight control of mainland China, the Peiping regime may have problems enough in trying to raise the level of living there. It may have resolved to shorten its commitments in Korea and Vietnam and be trying to obtain something in return. Or it may be concentrating its military strength for some kind of a demonstration against Taiwan."
The paper then went on to say: "Any proposition looking toward reunification of Korea is attractive; and troop withdrawal would seem on its face to suggest reciprocal action by United Nations forces in South Korea. But the situation is not quite so simple as this. Once before, the United States withdrew its forces from South Korea after Communist occupying troops (then Russian) had been removed from North Korea. What happened was that North Korean troops equipped with tanks invaded South Korea, overrunning an army that had been limited to small arms. That was 1950."
"UN forces, largely American, have been kept in South Korea to see that this does not happen again. To withdraw them would be to leave the South Korean army, large as it is, without atomic tactical support and facing probably superior aviation and firepower. Moreover, Red Chinese divisions could wait merely across the Yalu River while American troops, if removed, would have to be based in Okinawa or Hawaii."
The Wall Street Journal on February 21 suggested that the best thing for the United States to do vis-a-vis Chou En-lai's gesture was to do "absolutely nothing," for, the Journal said, it would be foolhardy to pull U. S. troops back to Okinawa or Japan and perhaps have to rush in all over again into a worse Korean war than the first one.
The Detroit News on February 20 said: "The United States and its allies forming the 8th Army in Korea are bound to view with a skeptical eye the news that Red China has determined unilaterally to withdraw its forces which are now south of the Yalu River. There is good reason to look for the concealed hook in this well-feathered bait. During the past five years, the Red Chinese have acted as if they intended to make North Korea a permanent bastion of Manchuria, elaborately organizing it with jet bases and other new defenses in direct violation of armistice terms. So Chou En-lai now announces that he will say goodby to all this but will take one year to do it. That is more than enough time to promote the desired confusion in Western policy, if he is merely making a propaganda feint."
The Kansas City Star on February 20 said: "Communist China's latest statement on Korea is strictly propaganda bait for suckers ... Peiping says that the U.S. and U.N. Command will obstruct the 'peaceful unification' of Korea unless we also pull out our troops. This makes the propaganda purpose evident. At no cost to their own military position the Communists will pretend to leave Korea on its own.
"Red China will continue to dominate North Korea. But the fiction of an uncontrolled territory will be created for the benefit of Asian neutralists. The best way for the United States and its allies to answer such a maneuver is with facts. We can point out that the North Koreans unleashed the war in 1950 with the full support of Russia and Red China. We rallied to the defense of invaded South Korea because of our U. N. commitments.
"The day is past when the United States can stay at home and improvise a defense abroad after aggression occurs. In order to be an effective defender we have to be on the scene. This requirement prohibits our withdrawal from Korea until there are safeguards for a free and unified country.
"There is a good rebuttal to the latest propaganda play by the Reds. It is to reaffirm our interest in protecting the free world from aggression and to make our sense of responsibility known to that world as persuasively as we can present it."
The Seattle Times on February 20 said: "Although the Communists' maneuver of troop withdrawal from North Korea is transparently costless to themselves, it probably will cause some embarrassment to the United States in maintaining its position in the Orient. It may serve to sharpen the frictions that sometimes mar United States-South Korean relationships.
"The key factor in the Korean military situation is that the two American divisions in South Korea are equipped with atomic weapons. Those weapons are the best guarantee that hostilities will not be resumed on the divided peninsula. They are the real targets of the Communist 'Yankee-go-home' propaganda."
The Milwaukee Journal on February 26 said: "Red China's plan to withdraw her 300,000-man 'volunteer' army from North Korea and her simultaneous demand that the United Nations get out of South Korea in return is good propaganda. As a step toward relieving tension, however, the proposal is tricky. The fact is that eight years ago the United Nations told Red China to get out of North Korea. This is a rather tardy obedience. A bigger fact is that such mutual withdrawal would leave the Communists in a stronger position than ever and increase rather than ease risks of war.
"For Communist China, withdrawal merely means a pullback over the Yalu river, across which Red Chinese troops could return in a matter of hours. For the United States and other U. N. troops to withdraw would mean a pullback at least to Okinawa, 1,000 miles away."
The New York Daily Mirror on February 20 regarded Peiping's gesture as a part of Khrushchev's present campaign to get the United States to recognize the status quo (a divided Korea) as settled, not to be argued over an y more.
"The North Korean government is Communist, dependent upon Red China for economic assistance. The two governments are part of the Soviet Universal States and are dominated as to policy by the Kremlin. When they meet in conference, it is not as two distinct sovereign states, but as two associates of a number of satellites of the Kremlin.... Therefore when they - Red China and North Korea - reach an identical conclusion concerning any question, it is evidence that a policy has been set in the Kremlin which they are implementing."
The Washington Star on February 20 said that there seemed to be "more fanfare than anything else" in the Red announcement.
"If they (the Red troops) are actually going to be pulled back into the Chinese Communist territory," the editorial said, "such withdrawal will involve only a relatively short trip and it could be reversed quickly. That is one reason why comparatively few American and other outside U.N. forces in South Korea are likely to rush into a similar pullback."
In other countries, the Scotsman, on February 24 said: "Britain's preliminary view is that U.N. forces should not be withdrawn from South Korea until there are adequate guarantees that the Red Chinese have in fact withdrawn across the Yalu and that they will not come back; and that nationwide elections will be held under U.N. - not purely neutral - supervision."
A Japanese newspaper, the Sangyo Keizai, in its February 20 editorial declared that the Communist announcement signified that the completion of the modernization of military equipment has made troops from across the Yalu River .no longer necessary. The paper listed four reasons to substantiate this:
(1) Ever since the Korea Armistice, the Chinese Reds have been reinforcing their military forces with better and more modern equipment. Equipped with more than 300 up-to-date jet planes and even missiles, they no longer find it necessary to keep their troops in North Korea.
(2) The Chinese Communist withdrawal would only mean pulling back a few miles to the Manchurian bank of the Yalu River, while a similar withdrawal by the United States and the United Nations forces would mean a complete withdrawal to at least 1,000 miles of open waters to Okinawa.
(3) In other words, the mutual withdrawal of troops from the Korean peninsula actually would make the Communist military forces far superior to the South Korean forces.
(4) If the United States refuses to follow the Chinese Communist move and keeps the recently introduced atomic-equipped 7th Division in South Korea, it would give the Communists new ammunition for propaganda that the United States is the real aggressor.