"Having just resigned as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International (United Nations) Organization Affairs and having represented the United States at many major international conferences during the past years where the major preoccupation has been to combat Communist Russia's efforts to subvert, confuse, disrupt and divide international understanding and cooperation, I strongly agree that to admit Red China to membership would be certain suicide for the U. N.," wrote Horace Henderson in Washington Evening Star on March 20.
"As your editorial points out," he continued, "it is unthinkable that the United States can ever recognize the use of force to gain admission to an organization dedicated to the maintenance of peace, that we would reject a loyal and steadfast ally, the Republic of China and grant Communist China a seat on the Security Council with Communist Russia and yet another veto to block every constructive endeavor to promote and protect the security and welfare of all nations to live in peace with freedom."
The Knoxville Journal editorialized on March 15: "A principal argument of those who will urge the admission of Red China to the United Nations will be in position to discipline the new member in case it becomes obstreperous in the future.
"This is probably the silliest argument yet devised by the international element pushing for a seat in the United Nations for the Red Chinese. Let those who proclaim this argument examine the history of Russian Communism since 1945. Let them measure the extent to which the United Nations has been able to control the threat by Moscow against other nations in the Free World or outside of it. In this record there is a complete refutation of any argument to the effect that membership in the United Nations would, in any way, effect either the aspirations or the attitudes of the Communist dictatorship in China."
The Los Angeles Times said on April 9: "The British, like many others who support Chinese admission, do so not out of liking or endorsement of the Chinese regime, but out of what might be called a fearful expediency. Britain's diplomatic recognition of the Communist government shortly after it seized power was almost certainly due to anxiety over the future of Hongkong. Similarly, other nations, India, for example, which are well aware of the true nature of the Chinese government still support its admission to the United Nations for reasons of expediency.
"The basic argument of these non-Communist nations which favor Red Chinese admission is that the Communist regime exists in fact; that it will continue to do so; and that the best way to curb Chinese aggressiveness is through the moral sanctions of the United Nations. By exposing the Chinese to 'world opinion,' the argument runs, moderation and amenability will be forced on the Peiping regime.
"What is ignored in this argument is the fact that Communist China does not qualify for membership under the U. N. Charter as a 'peace-loving state, and that to admit her would be an act of hypocrisy. A nation which has committed brutal aggression in Tibet, which has seized territory in India, which uses the crudest sort of pressure in Indonesia, Burma and Malaya in the name of 'protecting' overseas Chinese, and which constantly threatens war over Formosa, cannot be classified as a 'peace-loving' state.
"Communist China has yet to show by a single act that she is ready to enter the company of the civilized world. She continues to hold citizens of the United States illegally, she continues a campaign of unprecedented vilification against this country, and she continues to exploit and oppress her own people. These are not the acts of a nation which would be influenced by 'moral opinion'."
What Facts?
Commenting on a statement by British Foreign Secretary Lord Home that "the facts of international life require that Communist China should be seated in the U. N.," Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, a former member of the British House of Commons, wrote in the New York Times on February 25: "I believe and am joined by many of my fellow countrymen in the belief that the facts of international life call for just the opposite points of view."
He said: "There is no doubt that the Communists are in control of the Chinese mainland at this time. In 1940 Hitler was in control of most of Europe, but no one - except a few arrant appeasers - called for international recognition of Hitler's regime or international acknowledgment of his conquest. The British people and Government, at that time, were in the forefront of the fight against Hitler and suffered the savage results brought about by previous policies of appeasement.
"The Communist high command, with its dual centers in Moscow and Peiping, has the world as its goal. It does not seek either permanent understanding or disarmament or high living standards. It seeks world revolution and conquest. It intends to destroy us by any means open to it. To believe we can live peacefully on the same earth is the height of misguided optimism.
"The British Government, I am sorry to say, suffers from time to time from such optimism. It used its influence to prevent the U. N. forces from defeating Red China during the Korean war. The U. N. is still technically at war with Communist China-this same regime which Lord Home urges the U. N. to accept. There is no doubt that the admission of Communist China to the U. N. would be a major victory for Communism. Such action could only be granted on Red China's terms."
Commenting on the same subject, the Wall Street Journal asked on February 17 what are the "facts" so often invoked to support the Peiping regime's admission to the U. N. The newspaper said: "So far as the international community is concerned, the pertinent facts about Red China are that it is at war with its own subjects and every non-Communist nation. In order to hold power, the Peiping regime has had to kill and starve millions of its people, a fact that ought to be kept in mind by those who say 'China' should not be 'denied' a voice at the U. N. That denial has been ruthlessly accomplished by the Peiping regime, which speaks for itself only.
"Now, those who insist on gathering all the world's nations in one place assume that each has something to say worth hearing, and that such global togetherness will advance the cause of peace. In Korea, Tibet and wherever else opportunity has loomed, Red China has said to the non-Communist world, 'We despise your law and your liberty, and mean to crush it.' Peiping regime remains technically at war with the U. N. as the result of Korea. Is it realistic to assume, as the 'realists' do, that the tiger will he tamed by letting him inside the gates?"
The Chicago Tribune pointed out on February 25 that "It is something like saying that a certain person is a burglar, but, because he is a successful burglar who has not been caught, he should be admitted to a club for gentlemen. This is what could be called the pragmatic view."
The paper said: "The word from London is that Britain will vote in the United Nations at the next opportunity for the admission of Communist China. This rumble follows a declaration by 339 congressmen—54 senators and 285 representatives—repeating unalterable opposition to the admission of Red China.
"The British position, as set forth in Parliament by the foreign secretary, the Earl of Home, is as muddy as a bowl of bird's nest soup."
Constantine Brown wrote in Washington Evening Star on February 23: "At the root of the trouble is a misapprehension that we have brought ourselves, by our own lack of convictions and determination. In short, we have come to accept something called 'the inevitable.' We seem to accept the claim that it is in the cards that the Communists will have their way eventually, so why try too hard to oppose them now? Why risk a nuclear war to halt or to stall something that is probably going to happen anyway?
"An excellent illustration of this self-defeating, neutralizing, resignation is to be found in most of the talk these days about Red China. Recognition of the Peiping regime and the seating of Red China in the United Nations, we are told, is 'inevitable,' and the only thing in doubt is the date on which these things will happen.
"Of course, some of our allies have been telling us this for many years, but it is only in the last year or so that we have undertaken to accept and believe in the 'inevitability,' without actually saying so officially. But once a man or nation becomes convinced in the mind that something or other is certain to take place, with or without opposition, then he or the nation is already more than half defeated."
The Milwaukee Journal said there are other facts of international life, and they militate against any possibility of the Peiping regime entering the United Nations without some basic changes in attitudes of Chinese Communists and free government in Taiwan.
The paper said: "Communist China says that it will not sit at any table with representatives of Nationalist Chinese. The Nationalists say the same thing about sitting with the Reds. That would seem to rule out the 'two China' proposal under which the Communists would be recognized as the government of the mainland and President Chiang's government as that of Formosa. Now each claims the territory of the other.
"Which would be given the permanent seat in the security council? Could Nationalist China, which has held it since the United Nations was formed, be easily ousted? How many nations would back a move to do that? Would Communist China ever be satisfied with a lesser status even if the 'two China' problem were solved? It isn't likely."
"Far East Munich"
William Henry on March 14 writing in the Wall Street Journal said: "Twice in recent history the experiment has been made of trying to buy off an implacable enemy by sacrificing a weaker ally."
"Czechoslovakia was the victim at Munich; Poland at Yalta," said the author. "With the sorry results of these two trials of appeasement in mind, do we want to let ourselves in for a third flier in the same discredited philosophy in the Far East?
"Certainly there has been no visible change of heart in Peiping, which would entitle Red China to be considered a 'peace-loving state,' which is a condition of membership according to the Charter of the U. N.
"The British seem to be basing their case for a drastic change in American policy on a series of most speculative and debatable propositions. That the Soviet Union is ready for meaningful disarmament. That it can be trusted to keep any paper agreement on this subject it may sign. That it has both the power and the will to keep Red China from developing nuclear weapons. That international inspection and control can be effective in the nearly closed society of Russia and the totally closed society of China. Not one of these propositions can be accepted without question, and pretty serious question.
"It is a grave miscalculation to contend that there would be no serious unfavorable consequences if the U. S. should spurn the Nationalists and extend the welcome mat in the U. N. to the Red Chinese, who are so avowedly and violently hostile to this country. The whole balance of power in the Far Fast would be shaken to its foundations. Such a move would hearten our enemies and discourage our friends, not only in Formosa, but in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand."
Robert P. Martin of U S. News & World Report pointed out on March 20 that "the United States can expect to find its problems in Asia compounded rather than decreased, and tensions higher rather than lower, if the drive to seat the Chinese Reds in the U. N. succeeds." "This is the conclusion reached by many American and Asian experts who have been studying the campaign," he added.
"The U. S. will suffer a serious defeat in the 'cold war.' With the defense line against Red China breached, the U. S. will find it increasingly difficult to maintain its position of power in Asia. The Communists, on the other hand, will gain enormously in prestige. It is conceivable that Peiping will insist that the United Nations resolution charging Red China with aggression against the U. N. in Korea be withdrawn."
The Saturday Evening Post said on March 18 that "it is ridiculous to assume that only the mulish obstinacy of the United States prevents a happy solution in the Far East."
The paper said: "The question is not whether the voice of China's mainland millions should be heard in the world's councils. Mao's voice is not their voice. The real issue is whether we are prepared to abandon our whole position in the Far East and the Western Pacific, an area essential to the forward defense of Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast. That is the minimum demand of the Red Chinese, and it is a price we cannot pay. Isn't this a 'fact of international life' which even a British foreign secretary should consider?"
George E. Sokolsky pointed out in Hearst Newspapers on March 11: "Great Britain, on the plea of realism, favors the admission of Red China. The British are obsessed with the notion that they can achieve a split between Red China and Soviet Russia. The basis for their assumption is the growing antagonism between the two countries, an antagonism which is ideological within the Communist faith but which does not include the prospect of the Marxist-Leninist Revolution being made to fail in the interest of colonialists and capitalists.
"There is another factor in the British anxiety to recognize Red China and that is the prospect of trade.
"But that is no reason why the United States should change its attitude which is that if Red China comes in, the United States goes out. In fact, it is astonishing how many abstentions are counted each time this question comes to a vote-apparently many countries are ashamed to vote for it."
Surrender on Red Terms
After the Chinese Communists refused the new U. S. proposal for an exchange of newsmen in Warsaw talks, the Chicago Daily News said on March.10 what the Reds demanded was "nothing less than surrender on their terms."
The paper added: "Now, it would appear, the Communists have taken on themselves all the onus for preventing even a limited flow of information between the two countries. They probably have some special reason. The failure of China's 'leap forward' and the: frightful famine conditions there have been glimpsed through the Bamboo Curtain. American reporters to spell out failure would not be welcome."
The Seattle Times asked on March 9: "Well, isn't it about time for Uncle Sam's free-world critics to stop talking about his asserted 'head-in-the-sand' policy toward Red China?
"Uncle Sam took a straightforward diplomatic approach to Red China this week, and proposed a fair and reciprocal agreement.
"Peiping's response was to kick sand in his face."
The New York Herald Tribune said on March 10: "It is often said, both here and abroad, that it is folly for the United States to refuse to recognize Red China.
"But does Red China want to be recognized? Does it really care about a seat in the U. N.? Periodically, efforts have been made by the United States government to negotiate some of the relatively minor, but still important, differences between this country and Red China. President Kennedy has publicly expressed his desire for a lessening of frictions with Peiping. The American representative at the long-drawn-out discussions in Warsaw with the Peiping Ambassador, however, has been repeatedly rebuffed.
"When Ambassador Beam presented a list of thirty-two reporters who have been cleared by the State Department to enter Red China, the Chinese Ambassador rejected it, because it would be difficult to settle the question of newsmen while the United States continued to 'occupy' Taiwan. A request for the release of Americans help prisoner in Red China was also rejected.
"This does not offer any ground for negotiation on peripheral issues. If the Red Chinese were anxious to have better relations with the United States, they would offer at least minor accommodations on such issues. Instead, as Mr. Kennedy pointed out, the Red Chinese have been 'extremely belligerent toward us, and they have been unfailing in their attacks upon the United States.' The Peiping regime wants big concessions, abandonment of the Chinese Nationalist government, for example. And that they are not going to get. The President has stated flatly that 'we are not prepared to surrender' in order to get a relaxation of tensions."