Commenting on the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes to Free China, the Oakland Tribune on May 2 took note of his speech delivered at the Legislative Yuan. The paper said that Menderes' warning against Communist threat in the Far East and the Middle East should be heeded by the free world, especially by those neutral countries in Asia.
For instance, the Tribune said, Menderes pointed out that international Communism is making dangerous strides under the veil of the movement of freedom and independence by adapting itself to such currents, thus attempting to penetrate into every phase and walk of life. He also warned that in the Far East and Middle East, Communist imperialism exploits every national feeling and sensitivity in order to provoke even the smallest misunderstanding among the free nations.
"The United States has been striving to make these same points clear for a long time," the paper concluded. "But somehow their effectiveness has been lost because of the United States position. Perhaps, coming from one of their own background and their own part of the world, the warnings given by Menderes might have more meaning. At least we hope so."
In a syndicated column published in the Washington Star, Constantine Brown said that Premier Menderes had reportedly "discussed common political and military strategy in the Far East, should this area become involved in brush fires."
He said that Menderes was interested in establishing a cohesive link from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Yellow Sea. The reason is that the trained combat-ready power of Turkey, Pakistan, South Vietnam, Free China and South Korea amounts to some 80 divisions. Their determination to fight against the Communists is beyond question, the columnist added.
Brown deplored the tendency of American newspapers and radios to pay more attention to what is going on across the Atlantic than across the Pacific. Yet, the visit of Turkey's strong man to the Far East, especially to Free China and South Korea, he said, is meaningful and important to the political and strategic interests of the United States in that area.
Foreign Exchange Reform
The introduction of a single foreign exchange rate and other related measures governing exchange and trade in Free China was lauded by Pastor B. Sison of the Christian Science Monitor.
In an article appearing in the paper on April 24, Sison said the new policy "is encouraging to the proponents of free enterprise."
He noted that the limitations on importation of commodities with overseas Chinese capital for local sales, the system of screening and allocating foreign exchange for importation of industrial raw materials, the 'license' system which sets a limit on the number of registered importers and exporters, the defense surtax on foreign exchange transactions for purchase of foreign exchange certificates had all been abolished.
He also noted that the new regulations fix the foreign exchange rate at US$1 for NT$36 in both private imports and exports.
"Aside from encouraging the influx of overseas capital, simplification of the exchange rate is expected to boost Taiwan's export trade," he remarked.
Sison pointed out that this "liberal trend" was due largely to the influence in the Chinese government of the new Minister of Economic Affairs, Yang Chi-tseng, who assumed office last March.
However, he said that the new foreign exchange and trade policy is not tantamount to establishment of a free economy.
"The Chinese government still owns and operates most of the large-scale industrial enterprises on the island and more than 70 per cent of Taiwan's foreign trade is handled by state agencies," he concluded.
About Red China
Dr. Stanley K. Hornbeck, former director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs of the U.S. State Department, in an article in the May issue of the World Affairs, refuted the lie circulated by some writers in the United States to the effect that Communism is acceptable to the Chinese people because it is in keeping with their history and their tradition.
According to Dr. Hornbeck, the Chinese, as a people, have no history, no tradition and no living experience of anything comparable to or resembling the totalitarian system imposed upon them by the present Chinese Communist regime.
"The Chinese Communist party set out in 1949 to impose on the Chinese nation their own version of Soviet Communism, an imported authoritarian system. They have made war - hot and cold - upon the old culture and its manifestations. In the process they have done their utmost to extirpate all religions and all creeds - except the creed which they themselves preach. They have persecuted priests and teachers. They have expelled or imprisoned missionaries and foreign businessmen. They have forced the closing of foreign diplomatic and related establishments. They have burned and censored books. They have liquidated millions of their own people. They have enslaved many other millions. And, right and left and up and down, they have confiscated the properties of their victims."
In all fields, Dr. Hornbeck continued, the Chinese Communists have endeavored to eliminate Western influence, except that of the Soviet Union. Soviet experiences, practices, theories and products are regarded by the Chinese Reds as their patterns and guides. Thought-remodeling movements and 'anti' campaigns are engineered to set one group of Chinese people against the other. Gestapo methods of spying, informing, accusing, condemning and penalizing are employed. Intellectuals are compelled to abase themselves and denounce one another. All these are going on in mainland China today.
To the retired American diplomat, whether the Chinese Communist regime is a satellite or a partner of the Soviet Union is a question of little importance. "The two are allies," Dr. Hornbeck said. "The leaders of Moscow and Peiping have in common several portentous objectives. For the present, those leaders cause the bear and the dragon to lie down together, lie abroad together, stand together, forage together and profit together, in a climate of -for them - convenient and advantageous coexistence." What plans the Peiping Reds may have for external adventures they alone know, but they are emphasizing preparedness. With Soviet advice and support, the Peiping regime can be counted on to do all it can to defy the U.S. and agitate for the 'liberation' of Taiwan. Nevertheless, Hornbeck said, the mood of the Chinese people, the capabilities of the land and the relations between those who are governed forbid Peiping to risk a war with a power capable of bombing its industrial and military concentrations and blockading its ports.
"It is not true that all is well along the Yangtze. It is not true that in mainland China's cities there no longer are flies. It is not true that the people have enough to eat and enough to wear and are happy." Sharp conflicts within the Communist party itself, disaffection within the ranks of the military or an assault from Taiwan may touch off a major popular revolution.
Dr. Hornbeck saw agricultural collectivization as the most venturesome politico-economic measure so far undertaken by the Chinese Reds. The Peiping regime had yet to convince hundreds of millions of Chinese farmers that they could profit by collective farming after abandonment of their traditional aspiration to land ownership and of their accustomed manner of tilling their little plot of ground. Each farmer could offer resistance, he said.
The writer then hailed U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' policy enunciated in January 1958 that the United States would continue its support of the Republic of China, withhold diplomatic recognition from the Peiping regime and oppose admission of the Chinese Reds to the United Nations. He said that the Secretary's policy takes appropriate account of the record and the attitude of the Chinese Communist regime which works hand in glove with Moscow toward victory for Communism throughout the world. He asserted that the Peiping-Moscow axis is making use of a great variety of weapons and with many methods, press their attack on many fronts. They demand concessions, but they make no concessions. They talk of peaceful coexistence - but those words do not mean to them what they mean to the free people. "Communism," Dr. Hornbeck pointed out, "is simply the name of a system devised and employed toward enslavement and exploitation of the many by a few."
In conclusion, Dr. Hornbeck said: "Surely we should not give militant Communism aid and comfort. Surely we should refrain from any action implying that we assent to its purposes and efforts to consolidate and extend its gains. Surely we should not accommodate it at the expense of any of our allies. Surely we should make difficulties for it. Surely we must be prepared to counter with effective force if, when and wherever it resorts to use of force against any free people. And we must make clear to it and to all concerned that we can be relied upon."
An American challenged the current contention that Red China's manpower constitutes a military threat to the free world.
In a letter to the editor published in the May 4th issue of the New Leader weekly, Ernest Bunker said the report that Red China has attempted to build up the 600 million Chinese was completely spurious.
He said that the mainland Chinese represent a liability rather than an asset to the Peiping regime. "The guerrilla activities and the '100 flowers' campaign have revealed tremendous hostility to the regime in all strata of the Chinese population."
He added that the Red Chinese army is no match for that of the free world because it is inferior in training, morale and skill in handling equipment. This is why the Red Chinese were finally defeated in Korea by a small force under General Ridgway without bombing of Manchuria.
"Even assuming that Peiping could rally an effective force of some two million men," Bunker concluded, "any troops beyond that would probably be on the level of the Serbian troops in World War I, that is, an economic liability."
Peiping-Tokyo Trade
Commenting on the Peiping regime's cancellation of its trade agreement with three private Japanese trade groups, the Washington Post and Times Herald said on April 20 that another dream of trade with the Communists apparently went aglimmering.
In the paper's opinion, there has been considerable disillusionment in Tokyo over the past several years because the Peiping regime so obviously wants to use trade as a political weapon. "Actually, the most that any expert has been able to see in useful Japanese trade with mainland China is about US$100 million a year, and it is probably true that present Japanese trade with Taiwan is more profitable than the proposed exchange with the mainland."
The Kansas City Times remarked on April 16 that the 'punitive action' taken by the Peiping regime against Tokyo for its concession to the Republic of China on the flag issue was a net result of Japan's attempt to do business with both mainland China and Taiwan.
The paper added that the crossfire position of Japan suggests that in the end the United States may have to accept more Japanese goods. Otherwise Japan may be compelled to shift to an entirely neutral course.
E. F. Tompkins of the Hearst newspapers said on April 17 that Japan has sundry reasons for its position.
"Its real interests lie in Southeast Asia, which can provide Japan with immense quantities of raw materials in return for the bulk of Japanese exports. The Kishi government is promoting this policy with technical and economic aid, and otherwise."
Tompkins added that because Japan is non-Communist and intends to remain so, Red China has failed to execute an important phase of Soviet Russia's foreign policy.
The writer pointed out that the Kremlin's strategy was to obtain formal recognition of Communist China by the Tokyo government. He warned that such a recognition would strengthen the Communist bloc in the Orient, stimulate the international agitation to admit the Chinese Communists to the U.N., weaken the SEATO and disturb the cooperation between Japan and the United States.
Douglas H. Mendel Jr. of the Los Angeles Times said on April 24 that only 35 per cent of the Japanese regarded trade with mainland China as essential to Japan's economic future, but 2-1 favored Japanese recognition of both Peiping and Taipei.
He added that Taiwan buys as much from Japan as does the Communist Chinese regime, and Japan surely needs the sugar, pineapples, soybeans and other agricultural products it has secured from Taiwan ever since 1895, when the island was under Japanese control. "To sacrifice Taiwan trade for an equal amount of mainland trade would seem a doubtful bargain," he said.
Gordon Walker of the Christian Science Monitor noted on April 29 that the Chinese Communist attempt to export rice to Japan despite poor rice crops in mainland China was a pressure put on Asia's two non-Communist rice exporters, Taiwan and Thailand.
The columnist added that Peiping's exporting of rice is not merely for foreign exchange earning, but chiefly for political purposes. He gave two more examples:
"Red China has shipped some 55,000 tons of rice to Indonesia during the past few weeks, largely as a gesture of Peiping's support for the Indonesian Government in its struggle with the Sumatran revolutionaries but also as a measure designed to hit Singapore rice exporters who traditionally trade with Indonesia.
"Red China recently offered Ceylon 100,000 tons of rice more than the 200,000 tons normally exchanged under the existing rubber-for-rice pact between the two countries. This was said to be a gesture by Peiping to help out Ceylon in its battle with floods and loss of crops. But it is not without significance that grateful Ceylon is expected soon to send to Peiping a purchasing mission to buy a wide range of products, including machinery.
"One could go on for hours listing examples of Communist China's political trade deals. The Chinese people on the mainland suffer from a shortage of most consumer products, and yet Peiping dumps consumer products in Hongkong at prices lower than even the Japanese can quote. This, of course, puts economic pressure on Japan and Hongkong manufacturers, with the result that both Japan and Hongkong are more inclined to do business with Peiping so as to ease the pressure.
"This, then, is the pattern of Communist China's economic - and political - infiltration program. It is being stepped up every month. And it is having its effect in softening up non-Communist Asian states, which, however determined they may be to keep Communism out, nevertheless must trade or perish."
The Washington Evening Star on April 15 pointed out that Peiping's annulment of its trade agreement with the three Japanese private trade groups served as a good illustration of how the Communists inject political complications into virtually every effort to work out purely economic deals with them.
"In this instance," the paper said, "the complications have stemmed from the fact that Peiping has chosen to make a big issue out of the Tokyo government's perfectly proper announcement that Japan's official endorsement of the trade agreement did not imply any diplomatic recognition of Red China. According to Peiping's propagandists, however, such a statement can only be regarded as an act of hostility, and hence the economic accord - although supposedly negotiated without any political strings attached - is unilaterally renounced."
Gordon Walker of the Christian Science Monitor said on April 15: "This rejection of Japanese terms for a trade pact was not unexpected. Indeed, when Tokyo gave in to pressure from Taiwan over the flag issue, it was a foregone conclusion that Peiping would take this as a diplomatic defect at the hands of Taipei and act accordingly.
"A significant point to note, however, is that while Tokyo rejected the flag, it presumably let go through certain other terms which are highly favorable to Peiping. These include an agreement to ship goods on the strategic list, setting up of a permanent Chinese trade mission in Japan, and handling financial transactions through the semi-official Bank of Tokyo.
"It can only be assumed, therefore, that Peiping, while experiencing some injured pride over the flag issue, is itself sabotaging the pact in the interests of applying further political pressure on the Japanese Government."
Commenting on the scathing attack on Japanese Premier Nobusuke Kishi leveled by Peiping through its controlled press, Walker said this was worded in such a way that it strengthened the belief that Peiping used the trade pact as a political bludgeon aimed at the Japanese government rather than as a vehicle for promoting trade between the two countries. And this belief was strengthened further by the fact that while Peiping belabored Mr. Kishi for allegedly sabotaging Sino-Japanese trade, it was apparently going ahead with an even bigger trade deal which it had negotiated earlier with private Japanese steel concerns.
Communist China's recent offensive against the Japanese government - which culminated in the seizure of fourteen Japanese fishing vessels, cutting of all trade ties with Japan and Chen Yi's calling Japanese Premier Nobusuke Kishi as idiot - may well boomerang and serve to improve the electoral prospect of Kishi and his followers, according to the Manchester Guardian's special correspondent in Tokyo.
The correspondent believed that Peiping's suspiciously-timed upsurge of stern words and stern action was designed to assist Japan's Socialist Party on the polling day which favors recognition of Communist China. But Japanese public opinion is becoming increasingly critical of Peiping's strong arm tactics, he said.
Although Japan's International Trade Promotion Association had called upon the Kishi administration for an immediate change of government attitude towards Communist China, the correspondent did not think that the over 100 firms that sent representatives to the meeting of the Association are likely to cast their votes for the Socialist candidates in protest against Kishi's policy of sitting tight in face of Chinese Communists' bullying.