Against a background of the complete failure of the foreign ministers' conference to reach any agreement after 64 days of fruitless talks, it is strange that announcements of the impending visit to the United States by Nikita S. Khrushchev next month and President Dwight D. Eisenhower's scheduled return of call later in the fall should have revived on the international scene the air of "friendliness and peace" which prevailed during the Geneva summit conference of 1955.
Reasons which prompted this exchange of visits on both sides are not difficult to surmise. For President Eisenhower, there is his genuine hope that these visits might "melt a little of the ice" between East-West relations. Some of the United States' allies, particularly Great Britain, have in the last few months been pressing Washington to accept the idea of a summit meeting. And Republican strategists are understandably concerned over the limelight that were focused on Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and Averell Harriman for their visits to Soviet Russia and personal interviews with Khrushchev, even though Vice President Richard M. Nixon has recouped for GOP some of the lost ground. And last but not least, with the Geneva conference heading toward total collapse, this seemed to be the only graceful exit for the foreign ministers, who could not even agree on the place and time for renewing their negotiations on the reunification of Germany and the Berlin problem. Hence the hurried announcements made just on the eve of their departure from Geneva.
For the sly and arrogant Khrushchev, a personal meeting with President Eisenhower has been the real aim of his diplomatic maneuverings for the last few years. He has never considered any other Western leader, including Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, 'his equal. And he is probably pleased that the present arrangement raises no question of participation in the talks by his puppets in Peiping. Already he is cooing the familiar tune of "peace and friendship" and of finding "a common language and a common understanding." He knows that on the forthcoming visit he will receive the maximum possible coverage by all news media of the world, and that this will mean an immense boost to his prestige on both sides of the Iron Curtain. He is also aware that, particularly to the wavering and uncommitted peoples, to those who are ignorant and tend to take such visits as significant compromises on the position of the West, what misleading conclusions can and will be drawn by them under the hypnotic influence of Communist propaganda.
Very soon the world will be reading all about the blazing trail of the top man in the Kremlin, with his usual clownish acts, peasant manners and bullying remarks, cutting across the American continent from Washington to San Francisco. But Khrushchev, though with nothing to lose, has little to gain in his forthcoming trip. The United States has assured all her allies that she intends to be firm in dealing with the visitor from the Kremlin. The ghost of Geneva will not rise again, despite the wishful thinking of the Communists.
WAR IN LAOS
The invasion staged by an undetermined number of battalions of Pathet Lao troops, equipped and trained by Chinese and Vietminh Communists, into the northeastern territory of Laos was a clear act of aggression against a sovereign state by international communism. It followed the same pattern of outright use of force when internal sabotage and subversion have failed, as in every country shut behind the Iron Curtain after the war. The invading forces, though wearing Pathet Lao uniforms, are no different than Chinese Communist or Vietminh soldiers for all practical purposes. It has already been established that their weapons and ammunition came from North Vietnam. No one will be surprised if it should be discovered later that some of them are really Chinese or Vietminh Communists in disguise.
Since the so-called Geneva Agreement of 1954, the Pathet Laos has persistently resisted the attempts of the Royal Laotian Government to incorporate the rebel forces into the Royal Laotian Army, a condition which formed the very basis of that agreement. They failed to seize the power in the government through lawful means. Then they resorted to various tricks to create incidents as a pretext for inviting foreign intervention, which would have succeeded but for the patience and wisdom of the Royal Laotian Government under the capable leadership of Premier Sananikone. Now they have apparently decided that open rebellion remains their only hope to achieve the goals set jointly by Moscow and Peiping and executed through Hanoi.
As usual, it was the thief who cries "catch thief." As soon as the Pathet Lao forces appeared from nowhere in the jungle, Moscow and Peiping began to hurl all sorts of drummed-up charges against the Royal Laotian Government, trying to browbeat Vientiane into submission. The Red pressure for re convening the International Control Commission was the first step in their master plan. Once the free nations agree to this seemingly harmless demand, it would first give the rebel forces immunity from attack by government troops, accord them the de facto status of a belligerent party, and make the northeastern provinces of Laos their base of operations to pave the way for eventual conquest of the rest of the country. The whole process is all too familiar to those who have had the bitter experience in dealing with communism.
No one in his right mind will believe that the Kingdom of Laos, with a population of 2,000,000 and an army of 25,000, should harbor any aggressive intent toward North Vietnam or the Chinese mainland. On the other hand, there is every reason to fear that the rebel forces, if not promptly and sternly dealt with, would grow like cancer in the still young Kingdom. The Government of the Republic of China has pledged its full support to all efforts of the Royal Laotian Government in defending its freedom and independence. It is up to the other free nations to see the hidden danger and help Laos remove the root of this and future rebellions instigated by an external force.
THE MEANING OF KERALA
The decree signed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the Indian president, on July 31 dismissing the Communist regime in the state of Kerala, dissolving the state legislative assembly, and ordering a general election as soon as possible, marked a significant change in the direction in which India had been heading.
For 27 months, the Communist-controlled Kerala state government held on precariously to office with a majority of only two votes in the assembly, and which was once reduced to only one vote. While E. M. S. Namboo-diripad was nominally the chief minister, it was the Communist party secretary, Govindan Nair, who wielded the real power in the state. The Indian people soon discovered, from the example of Kerala what it is like to be living under a Communist regime. Human rights were ignored. Men were thrown into jail for opposition to the Communist party. Education was made to serve Communist purposes of indoctrinating the youth. The Communists did not fulfill their promise of working for the welfare of the people, but concentrated on their own aims of consolidating the control of the governmental machinery and converting it into a jumping board for' the seizure of power in other states.
Agitations against the Communist government in Kerala began four months ago, and gained momentum after the opposition parties, including the Congress Party, joined forces to lead the demonstrations. In the main, however, it was a spontaneous outburst of popular anger. Even the Communist chief minister admitted, when he invited Jawaharlal Nehru to Kerala to see things for himself, that there were "massive" opposition and unanimous refusal to negotiate for a settlement. The situation grew out of hand, with loss of many lives and much damage to properties, so much so that the "president's rule" had to be declared in the state.
While the move by the Indian government had been anticipated for some time, it was nevertheless bound to have deep and far-reaching repercussions. The Communists and their fellow-travelers in Kerala and West Bengal have already called the action from "unconstitutional" to "despotic." Whether the Communists will obstruct the coming election and violence will thus break out again remains everyone's guess. At any rate, it certainly would not help improve the worsening relationship between the Congress Party and the Communist Party of India.
However adept the Indian leaders may be in arguing that domestic politics have nothing to do with a country's foreign relations, they cannot fail to see the ridiculous position they got themselves into by opposing communism at home and heralding its cause abroad. The Indian delegate to the United Nations has again introduced the so-called 'question of Chinese representation on the agenda of the forthcoming General Assembly meeting. They have not learned despite Tibet and even Kerala. But the meaning of Kerala will not be lost to the rest of the world. The Indian people have made their choice, and their leaders will have to come around to it sooner or later.
KINMEN ANNIVERSARY
Editor's Note: The following guest editorial is written for the Free China Review by Mr. Roy Kervin, associate editor of the Montreal Gazette. Mr. Kervin is currently on a visit to the Far East.
August 23 is the first anniversary of the second Communist attempt to take Kinmen, the closed gate to Taiwan. It is a day which deserves celebration not only in the fortresses of the Golden Horse, and in Taipei. It is a day which should be celebrated throughout the free world.
Editorial opinions, however, are quite unnecessary on this day. The facts and their meaning need no decoration. The facts are that in both cases, in 1949 and in 1958, the Communists were shattered. The meaning is equally clear: when men know what they are fighting for and know that it is good, they cannot be defeated even by death. And when such men are given good weapons it is not only impossible to defeat them. Given good weapons, victory is sure.
The facts: concentrated shelling of northwest Kinmen produced only one effect, the stiffening of resistance. The Communist attempt to gain control of the air, vital to further operations, was smashed. The tally was 32 MIG's destroyed to two Sabres shot down. It is well known since Korea that any MIG, even the old Mark 15, can fly faster and higher and maneuver better than a Sabre of whatever mark. It is also well known that when a good man in a Sabre can get close to a MIG, the MIG is doomed. The men of the Republic of China Air Force are good.
The gate to Kinmen remains closed and the hands that keep it shut are both strong and willing. The Communist attempt of 1958-which included the failure of a landing operation-was not a test for the defenders alone. The defenders learned many things. They learned their own weaknesses and their own strengths. They also learned the enemy's weaknesses and strengths. And the balance proved that good men, given good weapons and good support, can not only defend themselves but can defeat any enemy even if he has superior weapons and superior support.
This is a lesson for the world, one of the most vital lessons it can learn. August 23 is a day which should be celebrated, not only in Taipei, but in Washington and London and Paris and Ottawa and Copenhagen and Mexico City and Delhi and Singapore. The proud men of Kinmen deserve it. They defend the whole free world.
It is certain that this day will be remembered in two other capitals, in Moscow and Peiping. But in those capitals, it will be observed as a day of mourning.