Taipei newspapers said the sale of American wheat to Russia and its European satellites is detrimental to the free world's cause and smacks of aid to the Communists in their time of need.
The Central Daily News (Chung Yang Jih Pao) maintained that the Communist food shortage is the natural product of a system that provides no incentive to farmers. It said the Communists have sought to enslave people by "controlling their stomachs?, but that failure to solve agricultural problems has almost brought about the downfall of Communism. The paper said American wheat will alleviate Russian farm shortages and help Communism to survive.
The editorial also warned that the wheat sale may establish a bad precedent, impair the strategic goods embargo against Russia, and let down the trade barriers against the Chinese Communists.
The paper said decision to sell the wheat is a "wrong move which will perpetuate the cold war". It maintained the U.S. government should take the lead in refusing to sell wheat to Russia and "starve Communism into collapse."
The New Life Daily News (Hsin Sheng Pao) suggested the Russians could have bought wheat from other countries, and that the purchase from the United States is for political purposes.
"The Russians are not only buying wheat," said the paper, "but also political advantage." It added that the transaction may sow seeds of discord among democratic nations."
The paper said the West should not sell food to Communist nations unconditionally. "This will enable them to surmount their crises and bury the free world," the editorial said.
The paper ridiculed the argument that selling food to the Communists is humanitarian, adding:
"Food shortages are a corollary of the Communist system in which men are treated as machines and provided with no incentives for production. They are manmade. Until the system is eliminated, starvation will be an integral part of the life of the enslaved.
"Nothing will be more in humanitarian than failure to eliminate the system by taking advantage of the seething unrest and the lessening of Communist strength.
"In Communist countries, troops and police are instruments of despotic rule. They, not the starving people, will be fed first.
"Starving people will regard Western sale of foodstuffs as collaboration with their oppressors rather than as humanitarianism. Their despair will be transformed into indignation.
"We don't oppose mitigation of the agony of the people behind the iron curtain, but the Soviet Union first must become a law-abiding nation and give its people the right of self-determination. "
The United Daily News (Lien Ho Pao) expressed fear that such a deal would "negate the very foundation of the free world's defense policy toward Communism."
"America stands in a position of leadership among nations opposing Communism, totalitarianism, and aggression," the editorial said.
"However, the United States would be letting down the free world, if it supplied wheat to the Soviet at the suggestion of U.S. businessmen. We cannot understand why America should do this.
"If the restrictions were revoked, how could the United States expect to prevent other anti-Communist countries from expanding their trade with the Red bloc? How could the United States prevent sale of armaments to the Soviets and their satellites?
"Such a relaxation would be contrary to the policy of containing the Soviet Union. The way would be opened for further Soviet expansion."
The newspaper said that neither Communism's bluster nor Khrushchev's trickery are especially alarming.
"What concerns us," the United Daily News declared, "is the prospect that the United States and other free world nations may give assistance to Communist bloc nations without contemplating the consequences."
Trade With Peiping
Taipei editorial writers were irritated by Japan's trade arrangements with the Chinese Communists and Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda's expressions of doubt that free China can recover the mainland.
The China Post said Ikeda's remarks are proof of his "two-fold stupidity"; first, because he is ignorant of conditions on the Communist-held mainland and of the effective preparations being made by the Republic of China for the recovery of the mainland; and second, because he is oblivious to Chinese magnanimity toward defeated Japan. The paper pointed to lack of reprisal against Japanese nationals after World War II, the waiving of claims for War reparations, and the necessity of Sino-Japanese friendship and solidarity in the face of Communist aggression.
The paper said Ikeda's attitude may be an outgrowth of the Japanese imperialist belief that Japan should keep China weak and divided against itself.
The Central Daily News said Ikeda placed self-interest above international righteousness in his decision to sell a vinylon plant to Peiping, and then, in his remarks about the Republic of China's return to the mainland, had made clear his intention of leaning toward Communism.
The paper said Japan will become an accomplice of the Communist aggressors if it seeks to relieve the Peiping regime of economic -and political isolation.
The editorial added that it is foolish for the Japanese leaders to seek meager financial gain at the risk of incurring the wrath of Japan's allies and of being brought into the Communist orbit.
The United Daily News urged the government to revise its policy toward Japan. It suggested that only a tough policy would pound some reason into the heads of Japanese leaders, who were urged to keep in mind that the Republic of China is a better market for Japanese products than Peiping.
The paper said the government should not act softly in fear that Japan might not support the Republic of China in the United Nations or buy sugar and bananas from Taiwan.
The New Life Daily News said Ikeda had "committed a grave error."
"Japan and the Republic of China have diplomatic relations and there is deep friendship between the two, governments and them people," the paper said.
"From the standpoint of international courtesy, Ikeda, as prime minister of Japan, should not make such statements."
The paper also questioned the factual basis of Ikeda's prediction of continued status quo on the mainland.
"The situation on the mainland is changing constantly," the editorial said. "No one can predict the changes nor when they will occur. Five or six years ago some international observers thought that the mainland regime was immune to change. In recent years, this concept has undergone drastic revision. Everybody now knows that the Communist regime is not unshakable and that the situation on the mainland may change radically any time."
The Cheng Hsin Hsin Wen Pao said Ikeda's statement is a breach of diplomatic courtesy and added that it constitutes a serious danger to the united anti-Communist front in Asia.
The statement is all the more serious, the paper said, because it comes at a time when "diplomatic relations are already strained over Japan's planned export of a vinylon plant to the Chinese Communists."
"The statement negates the aims of free China, one of the principal links in the Western Pacific anti-Communist lineup. It may present a danger more serious than Japan's vinylon investment plan."
The Independent Evening Post (Tzu Li Wan Pao) said: "Japan must have realized Peiping is trying to establish close relations with her because the Chinese Communists are isolated internationally. Peiping intends to carry out its political plot through trade relation with Japan. Then why should the Japanese government act in line with Peiping's policy and trap itself?"
The paper agreed with the government's cautious attitude toward the problem, adding:
"In view of the split in the Communist bloc, we consider that the Asian anti-Communist countries must strengthen their unity, and we do not want see a breakoff with Japan. We hope the Japanese people and government will set a limit on their relations with Peiping so that damage to the interests of the Republic of China will be slight."
Textile Agreement
Two Taipei newspapers said editorially the new four-year Sino-American agreement should encourage Taiwan to improve textile quality.
The U.S. import quotas are expressed in square yards, not dollars. Mills therefore will have to improve quality if they want higher earnings, the Central Daily News and the United Daily News declared.
The agreement provides a quota of 53 million square yards of 33 textiles for the first year. The amount will be increased by 5 per cent annually in the second, third, and fourth years.
The Central Daily News said such a percentage increase is reasonable, and that it is appropriate to normal industrial growth and market expansion.
The paper said the agreement would have an impact on member nations of the Geneva cotton textile agreement.
The United Daily News, however, did not regard the agreement as entirely satisfactory. "The quotas are too small," it said, adding:
"The United States has compelled us to accept the quota system by formal agreement.
"It is also unfair to take 1961-62, the first year of China's textile exports to the United States, as the base period, because it does not represent our productivity."
The paper maintained it is contradictory for the United States to impose an import quota on Chinese textiles, because the industry was built with U.S. aid and 95 per cent of the cotton it uses comes from the United States.
Double Tenth
Editorial writers of Taipei newspapers have suggested that 1963's October 10 national day will mark the opening of the year of national recovery.
The Cheng Hsin Hsin Wen Pao said: "We know the time for recovery of the mainland is not far off. In the past ten years, we have been able to build up the strength to reach our goal. This Double Tenth will go down in history as the eve of our sacred battle for national recovery."
The Public Opinion Daily News (Kung Lun Pao) said: "In past years, the Double Tenth has fallen in troubled times. This year, because the time is ripe for return to the mainland, the gloom has been lifted. Everybody is celebrating the national day with a lighter heart.
"However, in our joy, we must not forget the heavy burden we carryon our shoulders. Only by persisting in our revolutionary beliefs can we open a new era and write a new page in history."
The China Daily News (Chung Hwa Jih Pao) said:" Our anti-Communist revolutionary battle does not allow hesitation or indecision. Military and civilian compatriots alike must continue to tread the historical path of reconstruction. We must follow the examples of the revolutionary martyrs and move forward toward our ultimate goal of national recovery.
The English-language China Post said: "The happy life led by the people of free China and the sad plight of the suffering masses on the mainland form a striking contrast. The kind of tyranny from which the Chinese masses are suffering on the: mainland can never last long. It never did in the past - in China or elsewhere. Our final victory is in sight."
The paper contrasted the Double Tenth National Day with Peiping's 14th anniversary of the usurpation of mainland power on October and said the Chinese Communists are losing their "rosy hopes."
It added:
"At the very beginning ... the Red leaders in Peiping might have honestly entertained hopes of a bright future for their Communist regime. At that time, many people in the world could still be deceived and led to believe that the Peiping regime had ushered in a new era in Chinese history and was here to stay ... Thousands of overseas Chinese boys and girls flocked to the mainland to receive advanced education.'
"Those rosy hopes, however, did not last long - especially on the part of overseas Chinese. In less than two years the true nature of the Pciping regime became known to many people in the outside world. The most striking indication of this fact was the sudden decrease in the number of the Communist 'five-star' flags displayed in Hongkong in the annual 'celebration' of October 1."
The United Daily News scathingly criticized the New York Times for its October 2 suggestion that the United States explore the possibility of recognizing Red China.
Answering The Times
The United Daily News editorial made these points:
"The New York Times, known for its fairness and advocacy of liberalism, is a highly respectable newspaper. Yet to our regret, its editorial comments on the China problem have often failed, in recent years, to reflect the real opinion of the American people.
"An example was the editorial of October 2 which suggested the U.S. Government explore with a fresh eye the possible advantages of recognizing Communist China and agreeing to admission of that country to the United Nations, of course without prejudice to the rights and independence of Taiwan.
"These remarks clearly indicate that the paper upholds the rights and independence of free China on the one hand, and favors U.S. recognition of the Chinese Communists on the other. Undoubtedly, the Times still clings to the almost obsolete concept of 'Two Chinas.'
"To the free Chinese, the paper's absurd statements should come as no surprise, because it has compromised itself with similar remarks many times in the past. What merits notice this time are the discrepancies in the comment. In themselves, these make a farce of the editorial.
"The Times is quite aware of the desperate situation confronting the Chinese Reds. The editorial points out that the Red Chinese economy continues in deep difficulties and agricultural production is still not sufficient to feed China's masses at even minimally satisfactory levels. On the diplomatic front, the Times notes that 'Communist China today is the most politically isolated important nation on earth as a result of its disputes with Moscow and hostility toward the West.
"But knowing these facts, the Times urged the U.S. Government to consider recognizing the belligerent aggressor instead of suggesting that the United States pursue the enemy harder while he is showing signs of weakness.
"The paper seems to favor such consideration because of the great change in the relations between Moscow and Peiping. We agree that such changes are important. But the crux of the problem lies in the basic character of the Chinese Communist regime rather than in the state of Moscow-Peiping relations. If the basic character of the Chinese. Communists remains unchanged from the days of Stalin and the Korean War, the change in the relations between the two Communist regimes may be a tragedy rather than blessing for the free world.
"However, as long as the Moscow-Peiping alliance is not abolished, the relations between Russia and Communist China can be improved at any time. The Times and others are unrealistic in thinking otherwise.
"In the last two years, the Chinese Communists have repeatedly made it clear in the Warsaw talks that unless the United States withdraws support from free China and retreats from the, area, they do not want the political recognition of the United States. The Reds have reiterated this stand elsewhere.
"It is superfluous for the Times to make a suggestion of recognition at this time. The paper cannot please the Chinese Communists unless it urges both U.S. recognition of Peiping and withdrawal from Taiwan and other free Asian countries."