The reaction of the local papers to the Conlon report was calm and realistic. While they questioned the wisdom and practicability of its recommendation, they were of the opinion that the future of the Chinese people lies in their own hands. So long as they do well, they need not be unduly alarmed by or get excited over whatever other people may say of them.
The indignation that has been aroused in local circles following the publication of the so-called Conlon report, declared the Chung Hua Jih Pao editorially on November 8, "is understandable and natural. It is an expression of patriotic sentiment and a warning to a friendly ally. However, a review of the nature of this report will show us that such violent reaction is superfluous and that this report deserves neither our attention nor any attempt by us to argue with it." "As far as we know," continued the paper, "the Conlon Associates is a private and profit-seeking research group, not an authoritative academic organization. What effect its report will have on the Foreign Relations Committee of the American Senate is open to serious doubt, still less on American foreign policy. Furthermore, its recommendations are nothing new. They are no more than a reiteration of those views advanced once and again by a small group of the so-called leftist intellectuals in the United States, instead of being a reflection of American public opinion, to which they are diametrically opposed. "For this reason, added the paper, "we should not be unduly alarmed by it, for we should know that our future lies in our own hands. History tells us that so long as we can strive unflinchingly for the goal that we have set for ourselves, we shall eventually accomplish our sacred mission of recovering the mainland and delivering our enslaved compatriots from the tyrannical clutches of Communist rule."
Characterizing the Conlon report as a preposterous document, the United Daily News in its editorial on November 6 stated that the thesis upon which Conlon and his associates based their recommendation for the recognition of Peiping by the US Government was that the Communist regime is the representative of 600,000,000 people on the mainland. "They have obviously overlooked the fact that this huge population is strongly anti-Communist and nursing a strong desire for freedom." As to the admission of the puppet regime to the United Nations which had also been recommended by this research group, the paper went on to say that "it has forgotten that this regime has been branded by the world body as an aggressor. Right at the present moment, it is carrying on aggression both in Laos and on the border of India. Should such a regime be permitted to get into it, what would become of this august organization for peace?" The strangest of their recommendations, the paper pointed out, "is their advocacy of the internationalization of Taiwan. Let alone whether the United States has any right on this score, it may well be asked: Would the Chinese Communists take it as a condition for the renunciation of the use of force? In the eyes of the puppet regime in Peiping, the occupation of Taiwan is more important to its security than either its recognition by the US government or its admission to the United Nations. Facts have proved that the Communists will never give up their dream to occupy Taiwan. Even if they won the recognition of the US government and were admitted to the United Nations, they, whose prestige would have thus been enhanced, would demand more vociferously the occupation of this island. Such being the case, the recommendation made by Conlon Associates would not only fall short of satisfying the Communists' desire but also defeat the purpose for which the recommendations have been made."
Commenting on the same topic, the Chen Hsin Hsin Wen editorialized on November 6 that "we need not pay undue attention to the views expressed in the Conlon report. However, what merits our attention is that such views have become gradually prevalent among academic institutes and research groups in the United States. There are even senators and Congressmen in that country who have also been influenced by such views. It is fortunate that the US Government has not yet followed the line of those who are inclined to compromise with and appease the Communists." Such being the case, continued the paper, "it behooves us to pay greater attention to publicity abroad, particularly among those in academic circles and Senators and Congressmen who are unsympathetic with us in the United States. In so saying, we do not mean that we have completely neglected this kind of work in the past. The fault with us is that we have been too subjective and take too much for granted. We should know that the friends that we have to win over are not those confirmed friends but those who are unfriendly to us and do not understand us well. Instead of keeping away from this group of people, just because they are unfriendly to us or publish unfavorable criticisms against us, we should always bear in mind that, diplomacy being different from private social intercourse among friends, personal likes and dislikes have no part to play in it. For this reason, we have to select learned scholars who can win over this group of people with such arguments as are different from the hackneyed line of anti-Communist publicity. At any rate, the most important thing is that we should not rely on others and make ourselves a football in the domestic politics of another country or a pawn on the checkboard of world politics. We have to hold our own destiny in our own hands."
Commenting on the same subject, the China Post had the following to say in its editorial on November 5: "For the benefit of Conlon Associates we should like to state here a few indisputable facts: (1) the Peiping regime has driven all American missionaries, educators and businessmen out of the Chinese mainland; (2) it has committed open aggression in Korea, defying the United Nations Command and causing American forces to sustain over 100,000 casualties; (2) it is still holding a number of American citizens in its prisons; (4) it has also committed open aggression in Vietnam; (5) it is actively supporting the Communists in Laos in their attempt to overthrow the Laotian Government; (6) it is subjecting the Chinese people on the mainland to a form of tyranny infinitely worse than any ever experienced before in human history; (7) it has massacred over 20,000,000 Chinese during the past ten years; (8) it has put over 40,000,000 Chinese into concentration camps to work as slave laborers; (9) it has so far failed to fulfill any of its international obligations; (10) it has steadfastly refused to renounce the employment of force for the settlement of international disputes. The above is far from being a complete list of the charges that may be brought against the Chinese Communists. Yet, strange to say, the pseudo-experts of Conlon Associates seem to be totally ignorant of these facts. Apparently thinking that the Peiping regime has been unjustly treated by the democratic world, they have come out to advocate its recognition by the United States and admission to the United-Nations and the creation of an independent 'Republic of Formosa.' Only idiots and lunatics are capable of such proposals."
Taking a more realistic view, the China News said in its editorial on November 17 that "by now we people in Free China should have learned to face with equanimity any thing which others may say of us. Least of all should we feel dismayed because of uncomplimentary remarks someone happens to have uttered. Nor need we be elated when a friend pats us on the back ... Now, no one has said that the Conlon Report represents the views of members of the Senate committee which has authorized its preparation. But can anyone deny that there are people in the United States who think along the lines indicated by the report? Just the same, people in Free China need not have taken it half seriously as they did. By turning it into a topic of general discussion in the papers, our people have unnecessarily betrayed their anxiety over something of no immediate consequence." "Both the Chinese Government and people," continued the paper, "have done well on Taiwan during the past decade. If they can do equally well in the coming years, they have nothing to worry about the future. It may sound trite to say that the future lies in our own hands. Once we as a nation have set a course, let us stick to it and under no circumstance should we allow ourselves to be swayed in either direction by what others, our, friends as well as those not so friendly, may have to say about us from time to time. Our national goal is clear. Never take our eyes off it, Come critical reports or come encouraging pamphlets.
Chinese Deportees Issue
"The drastic action taken by the Philippine Government over the issue of 31 Chinese deportees is casting a dark shadow over the otherwise friendly relations between the two countries, and therefore, is to be deeply regretted. With patience and good faith, ways and means can be found for the solution of this problem to the satisfaction of both parties." Thus declared the Chung Hua Jih Pao editorially on November 10. The issue in dispute, continued the paper, "is quite insignificant in itself. That the authorities in Manila have seen fit to make a mountain out of a mole hill is most probably dictated by other considerations. For years, the Philippine Government has been putting restrictions on enterprises run by Chinese nationals in that country. It seems to take the view that, so long as the Chinese nationals stay on, it would be an obstacle to the development of its economy. Law-abiding and diligent, wherever they go, Chinese nationals help contribute to the economic prosperity of the place where they happen to live. Of course, those of our nationals residing in the Philippines play exactly the same role. In so saying, we do not overlook the fact that the strong economic influence exercised by the Chinese community in the Philippines may have caused jealousy on the part of some of her people. For this we do not blame. But for good of all concerned, let us take a realistic attitude toward the question and thrash out all technical problems involved. Only thus can the unpleasant affair that is plaguing the relations of the two countries be prevented from repeating itself in future."
Commenting on the same topic on the same day, the United Daily News deplored the action taken by the Philippine Government in banning the entry of Chinese into that country and stated that a move like this is not becoming to a country which is bound to the Republic of China by a treaty of amity." Of the 68 deportees, continued the paper, "with the exception of the one dead, 12 have already come to Taiwan and three others gone to Hongkong. This fact itself shows the sincerity of the Chinese Government in its endeavor to solve the problem. The failure of others to leave the Philippines within the time-limit was in fact caused by factors over which it has little control. The high-handed action which the authorities in Manila have taken is not the way to help solve the problem. On the contrary, it only further complicates the issue. For the long-standing friendship between the two countries, for their common interests as well as those of the free world, let us hope that the Philippine Government will show more patience and reason. Only thus can a satisfactory solution to this outstanding issue be brought about."
Attributing the abrupt action adopted by the authorities in Manila over the deportees issue to domestic politics, the China News stated in its editorial on November 10 that "this drastic action, taken on the eve of an off-year election in the Philippines, could be designed to impress the voters of how assiduously the Garcia administration is upholding the 'sovereignty' of the country and how painstakingly the incumbent party in power, namely, the Nacionalistas, is safe-guarding the 'majesty' of the nation. The Nacionalistas have campaigned on a 'Filipino First' platform. Regardless of whether the above is an accurate analysis, the Philippine government has certainly shown that it is highly emotional and that its diplomatic reportoire is limited to 'ultimatums,' pressures and intemperate actions of which the banning of all Chinese from entering the Philippines is but one example. It may be recalled that one high official in the Philippine Foreign Office even openly threatened to tear up the Sino-Philippine treaty of amity if the Chinese government should fail to do what the Philippine government wanted done. Somehow he forgot that he was dealing with another sovereign nation, and that was hardly the right of language to use." What we should do at present, continued the paper, was further negotiation, as stated by the Foreign Office spokesman of the Chinese Government. "We also agree with him that 'the present measure taken by the Philippine government does not contribute to the solution of this question at issue which should be reached in a friendly atmosphere through understanding each other's difficulties.' Of course, if the Philippine government should persist in issuing 'ultimatums,' the Chinese government should let it be known in no uncertain terms that it is tired of being pushed around by anybody, and withhold negotiation until the Philippine government cools off somewhat, and sees the unfavorable light into which it has projected itself by its own 'undiplomatic' and arbitrary moves." In another article on November 12, the same paper advanced the following view: "After all, it takes two to be friends. If the other fellow does not care to be one, little useful purpose will be served by appealing to him in the name of friendship. The attitude which the Philippine government has assumed should not have been assumed even between two individuals" much less between two countries. It is one thing for the Chinese government not to take any measures in retaliation, not 'to' its credit it has considered none thus far, but it does not mean that it should not express its displeasure in the Philippine action. We feel that the government should consider, among other things, the recall of Ambassador Tuan to Taipei for consultations. If the Philippine government does not appreciate the Chinese government's goodwill and is too almighty to accede to the latter's request for an extension of time, then no one need persuade Manila to lift the November 9 ban. The next move clearly must come from the Philippine government itself. One who ties must untie."