A warm welcome was extended to the state visit of President Ngo Dinh Diem to the Republic of China by local papers, which saw in it the dawning of a new era of close cooperation between the two countries in the political, economic and cultural fields in the days to come.
Greeting the state visit of President Ngo to Taiwan with open arms, the Central Daily News in its editorial on January 15 declared that "the Republic of China and the Republic of Vietnam are two sister nations. Besides geographical propinquity, they have a common cultural heritage. In view of this fact, his present visit is of unusual significance." When the Vietnamese Chief Executive first took over the reins of government over five years ago, recalled the paper, "the prospects for Vietnam were bleak indeed. The country at the time was confronted with aggression without and political and economic chaos within. With vision and courage, President Ngo set himself to the task of uprooting the well-entrenched influence of colonialism and feudalism at one stroke. Having removed the forces blocking the growth of the young nation, he began to build up its economic and military strength to meet the challenge posed by the Communists in the north. For this spectacular achievement, President Ngo has won for himself the well-earned name of the savior of his nation." Facts in recent years, added the paper, "have conclusively proved that Chinese technical know-how and investments made by overseas Chinese in that country are most advantageous to the program of industrialization that is being launched in Vietnam. And such economic policies as land reform and industrial reconstruction in Taiwan can be of much reference value to her. Let us hope that the present visit of the Chief Executive of Vietnam will not only bring about better understanding but also help to strengthen cooperation between the two countries in the days to come."
Attaching great importance to the visit of President Ngo to Free China, the Hsin Sherng Pao stated editorially on the same day that "thanks to the clear-cut policy of the United States, the anti-Communist situation in the Far East has turned for the better in recent years. However, 'Europe First' still dominates the thinking of the Western powers. The only way to change this conception is to make the voice of the Asian nations carry greater weight among the family of nations. For the realization of this objective, the first step, as we see it, lies in promoting solidarity and closer cooperation among the Asian nations themselves. We believe that the current visit of the Vietnamese President to Taiwan will go a long way in strengthening the cooperation between the two countries as well as that of all anti-Communist nations in this part of the world."
In welcoming the state visit of President Ngo to Taiwan, the Chung Hua Jih Pao editorialized on the same day that "we pay our high respects to him not only because he is a great statesman but more because of his signal contributions to the cause of freedom in the struggle against Communism." The Republic of China, the Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Korea, continued the paper, "are animated with the same desire and share the same feeling of frustration. What is their desire? It is to reunify their countries at an earliest date possible. What is their feeling of frustration? They feel frustrated because they cannot make any positive move under the present state of world affairs. How to change this trend depends largely on the concerted efforts of these three countries. For this reason, it is to be hoped that the present meeting between the two great leaders of China and Vietnam will evolve a plan whereby a regular meeting on the ministerial level of the three countries can be instituted to bring about closer coordination in the political, economic and cultural fields. Such a meeting, we believe, will iron out whatever misunderstanding that may arise among them and help to strengthen their confidence and their common faith in the struggle against their common foe. As we see it, the key to the world problem lies in Asia, not in Europe. And the destiny of Asia should not be left in the hands of those countries outside of Asia but in the close cooperation of the three staunchest anti-Communist countries. Unity is strength. Let us hope that the present visit of the Vietnamese President will be the first milestone leading to the closer cooperation among China, Vietnam and Korea."
The state visit of the Vietnamese Chief Executive, observed the United Daily News editorially on the same day, "gives the people of the Republic of China a feeling of intimacy, not only because of his staunch anti-Communist stand but also because of the high esteem in which he is held." Between China and Vietnam, the paper went on to say, "there are favorable conditions for close cooperation in the political, economic and cultural fields. Politically speaking, both countries are anti-Communist and striving for their national unification. Economically, China is embarking on a program of economic development and her success in this field is of great reference value to Vietnam. It is exactly for this reason that the economic missions from the Republic of China have been warmly received by Vietnam. Culturally, Vietnam under the leadership of President Ngo is building up a new culture which lays special stress on Confucianism. Such being the case, close cooperation between the two countries is very natural. One of the important objectives of the current visit to Taiwan of the Vietnamese President, we are confident, is how to bring about closer cooperation between them."
Commenting on the same topic, the China Post stated editorially on the same day: "With the settlement of the nationality issue concerning overseas Chinese in Vietnam, the relations between China and Vietnam have become still more cordial. Aside from technical cooperation in which Chinese experts from this island have played a conspicuous part, the Chinese government and people have always enthusiastically supported Vietnam's candidacy for membership in the United Nations. But owing to the Soviet abuse of its veto power in the UN Security Council, our Vietnamese friends have not yet had the satisfaction of seeing their country take its rightful place in the world organization. We are sure, however, that democratic and progressive Vietnam with the wholehearted support of the United States, the Republic of China, and other friendly nations cannot be forever barred from the UN. We, on our part, will never cease to promote United Nations membership for Vietnam until that objective is ultimately attained. In addition to intergovernmental cooperation between China and Vietnam, the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples have also been working hand in hand with each other and with other like-minded peoples of Asia through the Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League, which has its secretariat at Saigon. Through mutual cooperation on both governmental and popular levels, there has been created a favorable climate in which the two nations might proceed to strengthen their friendly bonds still further. We have referred to our distinguished visitor from Vietnam as President Ngo instead of as President Diem, as it is customarily done by many individuals, in order to show the close affinity between the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples. We welcome President Ngo not only as a friend but also as a close relative. China and Vietnam are two sister nations which have much in common both historically and in the present context of the world situation. On this auspicious occasion of President Ngo's arrival in Taipei, we wish him a pleasant stay on free Chinese soil and extend to him our highest respects."
Stevenson's Views on China
"The recent article by the American Democratic Presidential hopeful, Adlai Stevenson, in the influential magazine Foreign Affairs, is shocking to the point of preposterousness. His proposals are nothing short of sacrifice of Kinmen and Matsu, even the Republic of China now on Taiwan and her representation in the United Nations." Thus declared the United Daily News in its editorial on December 19. Twice before, continued the paper, "Mr. Stevenson has made similar utterances. During his campaign for presidential election in 1952 and in a speech made at a Democratic convention in Chicago after his world tour a year later, he suggested compromise with the puppet Peiping regime. Since then we have not heard any of his views on China until very recently. His recent proposals, in fact, go beyond anything he has ever said before and even the Colon Report pales into insignificance in comparison with the contents of his article. We are not going to refute to his suggestions in detail but cannot but deeply regret that a statesman of such repute should voice those views highly detrimental to the interests of a friendly ally of his own country which is bound to her with a treaty of mutual defense."
Commenting on the same subject, the Chen Hsin Hsin Wen editorialized on December 22, 1959 that "what Adlai Stevenson suggested in a 7500-word article in the recent issue of the well-known magazine Foreign Affairs is nothing new. In actuality, it has long been advocated by Nehru of India and more recently, by Colon and his associates." "It goes without saying," continued the paper, "that these proposals cannot be judged in the light of the principle of international justice. That Stevenson and like-minded people stand firm on their proposals is probably due to the fact that they believe that these proposals are the only approach to the cause of peace. Thus, it is not out of place here to make an evaluation as to whether these measures will lead to the result they obviously expect to achieve. First and foremost, no one will believe that an aggressor, once admitted into the international society, will accept its rules. In the annals of mankind, there has never been any international organization able to exercise its control over an aggressor. On the contrary, appeasement of an aggressor is the surest way to encourage aggression. History is replete with such cases. For example, without Munich there would be no World War II. It may be pertinently asked: Is the promise made by puppet Peiping regime to renounce the use of force more to be honored than that of Hitlerite Germany? Obviously laboring under the fear that the Chinese Communists would break their promise, Stevenson therefore suggested that in the negotiations with the puppet regime, Soviet Russia be invited to participate so as to make any promise it may give more binding. In advancing this suggestion, Mr. Stevenson has forgotten that Soviet Russia is the country which retains the highest record in breaking promise and international obligations. If Soviet Russia be made the guarantor of the puppet Peiping regime, who would be the guarantor of the former? On the basis of the above analysis, added the paper, "we can see that the so-called realistic diplomacy advocated be appeasers is based on a hypothesis which is least realistic."
In its leading article on December 19 refuting Adlai Stevenson's suggestions made in an article in the Foreign Affairs the China Post indicated: "In asserting that world peace is unattainable as long as Communist China is barred from membership in the United Nations, Stevenson is virtually saying that the maintenance of peace will be doubly assured if the Chinese Communists are admitted to the U. N. In other words, Stevenson believes that the Chinese Communists will bring peace wherever they may go. Such, however, is far from being the case. Anyone who thinks that Mao Tse-tung, Liu Shao-chi, Chou En-lai, Chu Teh and Company belong to a peace-loving brand of Communists needs only to recall what the Chinese Communists have done in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Tibet. Any nation which truly loves peace will remain peace-loving even if it is not a member of the United Nations. Whether or not the Peiping regime really loves peace and has any respect for the lofty ideals embodied in the U. N. Charter may be clearly seen from its continued defiance of the U. N. forces in Korea..... Stevenson also says that 'as a member of the United Nations, Communist China, with a quarter of the world's population, would be more accountable to world opinion than as an outcast.' In this connection, we should like to ask: Has Soviet Russia been more accountable to world opinion because it is a member of the U. N.? Have the Russian Communists not defied world opinion by persisting in their oppression of the Soviet satellites? Soviet Russia, says Stevenson, will have to accept responsibility for bringing Communist China into a better understanding with the rest of the world. In saying this the titular head of the Democratic Party is again hoping for the impossible. First of all, to what extent has Soviet Russia itself been willing to come to an understanding with the democracies. How can Moscow, then, be expected to bring its Chinese puppet into a better understanding with the free world? As a matter of fact, whatever the Peiping regime did in the past ten years has been done with the full approval of Soviet Russia its master. Any suggestion that Moscow and Peiping have not been able to see eye to eye on certain international issues and that there is likely to be a rift between the two is mere wishful thinking and betrays a pitiable ignorance of the true nature of the relations between Soviet Russia and its Chinese satellite. Equally indicative of Stevenson's ignorance is his statement that Soviet Russia may be 'willing and able to moderate Red China's imperialistic designs.' Is Stevenson insinuating that Soviet Russia does not approve of Communist China's imperialistic designs and should be considered as a non-imperialistic nation? In his article Stevenson also speaks of the right of the inhabitants of Formosa to determine their own destiny by plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.' Is Stevenson willing to come to Taiwan to find out for himself whether the inhabitants of this island—an integral part of the territory of the Republic of China—actually desire to have such a plebiscite? If so, the Chinese Government and people will doubtless be ready to provide him with all facilities after his arrival here. Lastly, Stevenson also advocates the evacuation of Kinmen and Matsu. Well, we take great pleasure in informing Stevenson that this is something we will never do. The titular head of the Democratic Party had better learn to be more realistic, because his unrealistic attitude might jeopardize his chances of being made his party's candidate in next year's presidential race."
Describing the suggestion made by Adlai Stevenson in an article in the influential magazine, Foreign Affairs, were more for his own political purposes than for anything else, the China News said editorially on December 26 that "while the remarks may be disconcerting to all those in Asia who hold dear to their hearts such democratic ideals as freedom and justice which are the basic pillars of the American nation, most Free Chinese would just laugh off such a fantastic suggestion. It is deplorable for a man who aspires to lead the Number One nation in the world to have ever entertained such fallacy." The American foreign policy in the postwar period, continued the paper, "has weathered many storms and contributed much toward world peace and international justice through an effective bipartisan policy. Somehow this policy has been less prominent in the last year or two. There are indications the two leading parties in the United States often do not see eye to eye on crucial issues. Yet, on the other hand, we do not take the utterances like the one made by Mr. Stevenson necessarily represent a basic rift on the American home front on international politics.... If that is the case, we sincerely wish the Democratic presidential aspirant every success. But we would like to suggest to him to look around for other issues to exploit and spare us with the China and the offshore island issues. Our advice is: the American presidential campaign is Mr. Stevenson's business, but the China problem is unfortunately ours. As such we will sweat it out ourselves without being made a scapegoat."