Taiwan Today

Mao Tse-tung Steps Down Speculating on Mao Tse-tung's decision to step down from the chairmanship of the "Chinese People's Government," the local papers were of the opinion that the Communists' defeat in the Battle of Kinmen and the storm of opposition aroused by their current "people's commune" system were important but not decisive factors which led to this decision. He would never have decided to step down, they said, had the Kremlin not exercised high pressure against him. Be that as it may, change of leadership should not be construed to mean any change in the Communists' basic policy. Regarding the Reds failure in the invasion of the Taiwan Straits and the widespread opposition to the "people's commune" system by the people on the mainland as chief factors which had prompted Mao's decision to step down, the Central Daily News, in its editorial on December 16, stated that he would not have taken this step if Moscow had not exercised pressure against him. Since the death of Stalin, continued the paper, "most Stalinist leaders of the Soviet satellites both In Europe and Asia had either been put to death or liquidated. Mao is the only Stalinist leader of great stature who still enjoys undisputed power. The Kremlin leaders, either during the period of collective leadership when Malenkov was the Premier or under Khrushchev's dictatorship could never be sure of Mao's loyalty towards them. They could not set their heart at ease so long as Mao remained in power. His downgrading thus has been a foregone conclusion." The question posed by the latest development, added the paper, is: "Could Mao ever restore his power or leadership? Or does his present stepping-down simply mean the end of his political career? We need not take the trouble to answer it at present. However, one thing is certain: Mao's giving up of his post as 'chairman' of the puppet regime is not only his personal defeat but the defeat of the whole Chinese Communist Party. Should Mao from now on be headed for complete eclipse from which there is no hope of return, it would not be his personal decline of power but that of the whole puppet regime." "Whether Mao Tse-tung's giving up of the 'chairmanship' of the puppet regime is an indication of his actual downfall depends in the last analysis on whether his leadership and ideology would be liquidated or revised," thus declared the Hsin Sheng Pao editorially on December 17. In the Communist scheme of things, the paper went on to say, "if a certain person is to be overthrown, the liquidation of his leadership and ideology must come first. This was the case with Chen Tu-hsiu, so was it with Li Li-san. Mao Tse-tung would of course be no exception. However, the downfall of a person does not necessarily mean the disintegration of the Communist organization. Take Soviet Russia for example. Before the death of Stalin, many people in the free world were inclined to believe that once he was gone, the Soviet regime would collapse like a house built on sand. Now Stalin has been dead for over five years? Has the world situation undergone any change for the better? Definitely not. This fact only proves that since the Communist Party is an ideological entity, anyone may come to the fore to replace its leader and tactics may change from time to time to fit in with the ever-changing world situation, but the fundamental aims of the party will always remain the same. Thus it would be a fatal mistake to assume that Mao's stepping- down would presage a major shift in the Chinese Communists' policy." Furthermore, the paper pointed out, "Many people have entertained the illusion that Mao would one day become the Tito of the East. Now that he has fallen, they may expect the emergence of a new Tito. Such a view is just wishful thinking, which is quite contrary to reality. In this connection, we have to point out that Mao's line is not only more radical than that of Tito of Yugoslavia but also that of the Kremlin. Tito has launched scathing attacks against the "people's commune" system and Moscow has taken an indifferent attitude toward it. Therefore, even if Mao did not fall, it is certain that he would never toe Tito's line. If the downfall of Mao is real, it must be because of the unusually heavy pressure Moscow has brought to bear on him. If so, the Soviets will certainly exercise more effective control over the puppet regime in the days to come. Thus, it would be even less possible for the Chinese Communists to follow Tito's line." "Speculation is rife as to the real cause which prompted Mao Tse-tung to relinquish the 'chairmanship' of the puppet Peiping regime. But so divergent are the opinions of the mainland affairs experts that there is not a definite answer to it. At any rate, this question will ever remain an enigma which defies a correct answer," said the Independence Evening Paper on December 21. "The Communist Party," the paper continued, "be it Russian or Chinese, is always in the process of change. There is only one thing which it will never change, namely, its ambition to effect the Sovietization of the world. While living, Stalin was worshipped as a demigod. Once he was removed from the scene by death, he was 'purged' by his closest followers. Of course, this was something not expected by the so-called experts on Russian problems. Again, who could foresee that Khrushchev, an insignificant Russian Communist in the days of Stalin, would one day rule Soviet Russia with the dictatorial power of Stalin? All this is to prove that change of leaders in a Communist regime has nothing to do with the people under its domination. Even if Khrushchev were forced to step aside one day, another Khrushchev would emerge. We can not see any change in the fate of the oppressed Russian people if no outside influence comes to their rescue. For this reason, what good is there to ask the question: what will be the fate of Mao Tse-tung? Even if he died, our compatriots on the mainland would not be saved, so long as the Communist regime is there. Therefore, we have to address ourselves to the work of overthrowing the puppet regime and need not trouble ourselves with such meaningless questions." Commenting on the same topic, the China Post declared editorially on December 17: "If Mao does step down from his high pedestal as 'Chairman' of the Chinese Communist 'government,' the question whether this can be regarded as Mao's real downfall will hinge on whether or not he continues to be the head of the party. Should Mao remain the head of the party and continue to exercise all the powers appertaining to that position, his resignation from the post of 'Chairman' certainly cannot be considered as a big decline in his prestige. Since it is the Communist party which controls the 'government,' Mao's successor--be it Chu Teh or someone else would be more or less a figurehead. Another important question is: If Mao actually steps down from his post as 'Chairman' of the Chinese Communist 'government,' is it a voluntary act or a result of pressure applied by the other powerful leaders of the Communist party? If it is the pressure of the other Communist chiefs that is forcing Mao to step down, then even as head of the party he will be no more than a figurehead, or he may be deprived of that position altogether. "To a considerable extent, therefore, the situation is still shrouded in an air of mystery. Nevertheless, some definite conclusions can already be drawn at this moment. First, there can be no doubt that all is not well with the Communist regime on the mainland. For many years, Mao Tse-tung's position in Communist China has been similar to that of Stalin in Soviet Russia. It has long been taken for granted among the Communists that Mao alone is qualified to be concurrently 'Chairman' of the 'government' and head of the party, and that his authority cannot be questioned. The very fact that he will soon cease to be the chief of state clearly shows that there is widespread discontent on the mainland and some spectacular action must be taken to pacify the Chinese masses. "Second, regardless of who is to succeed Mao as 'Chairman' of the Chinese Communist 'government,' and no matter whether Mao, if he remains head of the party, is to be a figurehead or not, there will be no substantial change in the Chinese Communists' objectives or methods used by them in ruling the country. They will continue to oppress and exploit the Chinese people on the mainland though they may adopt go-slow tactics in enforcing the 'commune' system or abolish it altogether. In other words, no improvement in the lot of the masses can be expected. "Third, it may be considered as quite certain that the relations between Peiping and Moscow will remain the same as before. As a matter of fact, we strongly suspect that the Kremlin has a hand in the reported downgrading of Mao Tse-tung, leaving Mao still the top-man in the Chinese Communist Party, then his vacating the 'Chairmanship' is only tactical, a move to appease people at home and to mollify the Big Brother in Moscow. Meanwhile, everything else about the Communist tyranny will not end until it is overthrown and not a day earlier." Ike's State of Union Message Calling the American Chief of State's message a concrete demonstration of the United States' determination to maintain its military superiority in defense of freedom and peace of the world, the Hsin Sheng Pao editorialized on January 11 that "we are certain that in the face of the Communist aggression in future, the United States, alive to its international obligations, will not hesitate to take immediate and effective actions to deal with the situation in exactly the same way as it did last year during the crises in the Middle East, Taiwan Straits or Berlin." "Though there is nothing new in this message," continued the paper, "the firm attitude evinced therein is encouraging in itself and the very avoidance of any expressions of appeasement is a proof that the two major parties of the United States have a meeting of minds in their basic viewpoints. The firm U.S. policy will no doubt contribute much to the security of the free world." "At the time when the Soviet deputy-premier Mikoyan is paying his visit to the United States, President Eisenhower's strong rebuke to Soviet Russia for its breach of international faith in his annual State of the Union Message will dampen the enthusiasm of his activities," the Combined Daily News editorially declared on the same day. "Over 61 percent of the whole budget," continued the paper, "is earmarked for national defense, military aid and atomic research. This is proof that the American President is determined to back up his warning to the Soviets with strength. In his message, he maintains his view of collective world security which is a serious warning to those who advocate isolationism. Many countries today are receiving U.S. military and economic aid. Should the United States withdraw her support to them, it would indeed deal an irreparable blow to the defense of the free world against the insidious encroachments of world Communism. Therefore, the clear-cut attitude taken by the American President will go a long way in boosting the anti-Communist spirit of the free nations." Terming President Eisenhower's state of the union message a most remarkable document, the China News in its editorial on January 15 stated: "It is in reality a state of the world message addressed as much to people outside of the United States as to those inside it." "Above everything else," the paper continued, "the message is a re-affirmation of the United States faith in democracy and freedom, and at the same time a reiteration of its readiness to help other nations in a common effort to deter further Communist aggression." "Just as peace is indivisible," the paper further pointed out, "so is security. President Eisenhower rightly admits that 'America's security can be assured only within a world community of strong, stable, independent nations, in which the concepts of freedom, justice and human dignity can flourish. There can be no such thing as Fortress America. If ever we were reduced to the isolation implied in that term, we would occupy a prison, not a fortress.' Nations which want to defend their freedom but cannot full do so from their own means, should feel heartened by the American leader's assurance and that the United States can and must continue assistance to such nations as it has been doing since 1947. There is not the slightest bellicosity in President Eisenhower's message. But there is enough firmness in it to discourage Communists of any nationality from trying to start new troubles in 1959. The United States is in no mood to countenance aggression."