There is a pitfall in Washington's search for ever more perfect international strategic cooperation against the Soviet Union. It is to lose sight of existing mechanisms in the rush to fashion new ones. End results may encompass severe damage to present vigorous free world structure, in what amounts to vast overdesign of the framework for a Washington-Peiping anti-Soviet axis.
The burgeoning free market economies along Asia's Pacific rim are the major strategic impediment, within the American military umbrella, to Soviet gains in the area. The Republic of China is a significant entity in that region. From Japan to the Indonesian archipelago there is a complex intertwining of influences emanating from the Republic of China on Taiwan and necessary to the region's future stability. These influences are political and cultural as well as economic and military. It would be as costly a mistake to downgrade the subtler impact of the former as to dismiss the latter. In fact, enhancement of both is in the free world interest.
"The 'conventional wisdom' now permeating some circles in Washington," writes Robert L. Downen of the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies, "holds that Peiping's recent unification overtures to Taipei present a persuasive case for deferring new U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan or other actions which would improve United States cooperation with Taipei."
In an article appearing in The Economic Monthly, Downen went on to say, "In truth, the current circumstances point precisely in the opposite direction. The worst policy that Congress and the Reagan Administration could propose at the moment.... would be the postponing of needed defensive equipment for Taipei or the slackening of visible commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act."
Since Peiping has never been constrained by formal arrangements from following its own perceived interests, pursuit of the utopian strategic formula is unlikely to result in a payoff to the U.S. worth the negative side effects. Nevertheless, some circles in Washington are highly interested in a "grand strategic design," and Peiping is making the most of it in attempts to weaken and isolate Taipei.
"The barrage of peace and unity proposals from Peiping to Taipei represents a calculated attempt to put pressure on the U.S. and on the Nationalist government of Taiwan at a crucial moment," wrote Business Week’s Sol W. Sanders. He went on to warn against impulsive U.S. reflexes as a result of Peiping's prodding. The attack on Taiwan under the guise of closer relations with the U.S. is outlined by University of California Professor Thomas H. Metzger in a letter to the New York Times:
"Today this danger (to Taiwan's security) has become clear and present as the Communists begin their drive to take over Taiwan, kicking it off with an ingenious diplomatic offensive by telling the world they offer Taiwan autonomy under their sovereignty. If Taipei recognized Communist authority in even a symbolic way, the psychological and moral commitments on which the Taiwan Government is based would collapse. That is why the Communists can afford to offer Taiwan anything so long as it recognizes Communist sovereignty."
Republic of China Premier Sun Yun-suan said it another way. He noted that Peiping's "peace offer" evaded the real issue "which is whether China should adopt a free and democratic system or a totalitarian and dictatorial one." The Republic of China is not struggling for power or territory, Sun said, adding: "Millions upon millions of our suffering mainland compatriots stand on the brink of a terrible abyss. We cannot abandon our rightful position and lofty goal and hold a candle for the devil."
The stakes for Peiping are the Asian world. The underlying reason for Communist China's pretensions - first of critical military danger from the Soviet Union, then of not-enough-military danger from the USSR to warrant U.S. support for Taipei - were succinctly underscored by Jeremiah Novak, writing in the New York Times:
"Politically, Taiwan's success has affected the mainland's intellectual and military climate, for that success is a constant reminder of the Communists' failures. Peiping no longer can mask the huge economic difference between the mainland and Taiwan. Many overseas Chinese now visit (mainland) China. They have spread information about Taiwan's success, especially among the intellectual elite. Moreover, many mainland diplomats, scientists, government officials, and students have met their Taiwanese counterparts. To their dismay, they have learned that during periods of chaos, from the 'Great Leap Forward' in 1959 through the episode of the 'Gang of Four,' Taiwan entered the modem scientific age."
Writing in the BBC publication The Listener after visits to both Taiwan and Communist China, Dennis Duncanson, a faculty member of the University of Kent, observed:
"The (Taiwan) line with foreigners and people at home alike is simple: if you want to compare the Nationalist regime to the Communist regime, just look at living standards, educational opportunity, personal liberties." He went on to say:
"(ROC President Chiang Ching-kuo) has rejected out of hand the offer of ''negotiations on equal terms’: there can be no true equality, since the Communists would stand only to gain something, however little at first, or gradually; the Nationalists only to lose, however little at first, but with gathering speed. If the proposals for family visits were acted on, the Nationalists would have to introduce hateful controls in order to prevent subversion because they have an open society, whereas the Communists need take no special measures, because they have total social control anyway. Reunification would have to end in Communist Party rule on Taiwan."
And that purpose - a total takeover by the Communists - is quite clearly the basis for any Peiping offer.
"So from the viewpoint of the man in the street in Taiwan," writes David Bonavia in the London Times, "the big question must be: what would reunion with the mainland really be like? Would the island's inhabitants have to end up having to attend interminable political meetings, denounce each other for political heresy, see their national culture impoverished and trampled on, children turned against their parents, and severe persecution or forced abortion for women who want more than one child?"
The Boston Herald American, editorially, answered: "The response from Taiwan was immediate and to the point. The answer was 'No'. And it came from President Chiang Ching kuo, son of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek...
"President Chiang said: 'To talk peace with the Chinese Communists is to invite death. This is an agonizing, bloodstained lesson that we and many other Asian countries have learned.'
"Chiang Kai-shek... would have enjoyed hearing (him)."
The New York Journal of Commerce further quoted President Chiang Ching-kuo: "'The Communists raise the slogan of "cooperation" only when they are weak and need to strengthen themselves.' When Peiping feels strong, it shows its true colors by threatening to take over Taiwan by force."
James Lilley, new director of the American Institute in Taiwan, described the basic relationship between the ROC and the U.S.A. in terms sharply contrasting with the perceived American anti-Soviet interest in Red China:
"We share an interest," Lilley said, "in the free enterprise system; we share an interest in evolution of democracy and free choice, we share an interest in serving our people by raising living standards; we share an interest in religion."
Those shared interests are in wider domain across the free market countries of the Pacific rim. Their security concerns - as the situation in Central America dramatically demonstrates - depend on interior concerns much more than "grand strategic designs." That, of course, is the pitfall in a utopian Washington-Peiping anti-Soviet axis, which could in itself precipitate the instability and downfall of free Asian nations the "grand strategic designers" presume to protect.
ASIAN GROUP WARNS U.S.
The 17th general assembly of the Asian-Pacific Parliamentarians’ Union, headed by former Japanese Premier Nobusuke Kishi, appealed to the United States to stop using Red China vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, and to extend appropriate military assistance to Pacific rim free countries.
Kishi warned, at the closing ceremony of the Tokyo conference, that the tripolar strategic conflict in Asia (among the U.S., Red China, and the Soviet Union) is now directed to the Pacific Ocean.
The future vitality of the Pacific region in the 21st century is highly evaluated because of its abundant resources, Kishi pointed out.
The proposed "Pacific Development Bank" project was also taken up in serious detail during the general assembly and was viewed as a significant step toward regional cooperation in economic development.
Peiping's Gulag
The following is excerpted from a longer article by Fox Butterfield of the New York Times News Service.
In the United States, persecution of Soviet dissidents frequently becomes front page news. The Gulag Archipelago, the Soviet system of forced labour camps, has become synonymous with the moral horrors of totalitarianism.
Dissidents such as the Sakharovs, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, or Anatoly Shcharansky become practically household names and American groups often agitate on their behalf, sometimes with successful results....
There has been no similar reaction to the widespread political persecution of intellectuals' in (Red) China. Probably no more than a handful of Americans know name of Lao She, one of (Red) China's most popular writers, who was drowned in the late 1960s by Red Guards in a Peiping lake. There have been no outcries about recent attacks in the (Red) Chinese press on a prominent writer, Bai Hua, who wrote a screenplay that questions how successful the Communists have been.
Bai Hua has been forced to make a self-Criticism and his fate is unclear.
Have Americans had a double standard when it comes to the Soviet Union’s and (Red) China's treatment of dissidents? Mrs. Merle Goldman, a professor of history at Boston University and author of a new book, China’s Intellectuals: Advise and Dissent, believes the answer is a culpable yes....
....What is becoming evident is that (Red) China's record has been, in this respect, worse than most Americans knew or wanted to admit. In an article in the current issue of the Radcliffe Quarterly, Mrs. Goldman charges that "like those who knew about the holocaust, my colleagues and I in the China field did not speak out loudly and publicly about the persecution or intellectuals" in the anti-rightist campaign of 1957.
There are no overall Government figures on the number of Chinese intellectuals persecuted since the Communist triumph in 1949, but there are some indications. A knowledgeable Chinese editor told Mrs. Goldman, who is also an associate of the Centre for East Asian Research at Harvard, that between 400,000 and 700,000 intellectuals were arrested, imprisoned or sent to work in the countryside during the anti-rightist movement alone in 1957-58....
By comparison, in the Soviet Union today there are perhaps 10,000 or at most several tens of thousands of political prisoners being held in the Gulag Archipelago, apart from ordinary criminals.
PEIPING EYES THIRD WORLD
(Communist) China is cooling its ardour towards the United States as part of a long-range policy aimed at enhancing its position among Third World nations, American officials said.
The officials, who asked not to be identified, said the (Red) Chinese policy has added a new and divisive dimension to Sino-American ties, already clouded by uncertainties over future American military relations with Tai wan.
(Red) China has been trying to gain clout with Third World countries for years with only marginal success.
It apparently has concluded, the officials said, that the campaign was being hampered by its close identification with the United States.
The (Communist) Chinese have indicated they feel somewhat uncomfortable with President Ronald Reagan, partially because of his campaign statement last year about the desirability of "official" U.S. ties with Taiwan.
Even though Mr. Reagan retracted that statement, U.S. - (Communist) Chinese relations have not prospered as they did under the Carter administration.
One reason is the Reagan administration's refusal to (totally) rule out approval of Taiwan's' request for U.S.-made fighter planes. Peiping has warned that its relations with Washington will be downgraded if the plane sale is approved.
(Red) China's role as champion of Third World causes became evident last month when it blocked Dr Kurt Waldheim's bid for re-election as UN Secretary General, paving the way for the election of Mr. Javier Perez del Cuellar of Peru.
(Red) China argued that the time had come for a Third World representative to hold the post.
Earlier, at the North-South summit meeting in Cancun, Mexico, Peiping and the United States were poles apart, with (Red) China staking out a stridently pro-Third World position.
Part of (Red) China's disaffection with the United States stems from its view that the Reagan administration too often plays into the hands of the Soviet Union.
Peiping says Arab countries, for example, are forced to turn to Moscow because of Washington's friendship with Israel.
The Peiping People's Daily recently had this comment on U.S. ties with Israel, South Africa and Taiwan: "Resisting the trend of the times and supporting unpopular 'old friends' doing evil things ultimately is bound to harm the 'old friends' and oneself too."
The Soviet Union has been able to capitalise on anti-Americanism in a number of Third World countries, and (Red) China appears to be trying the same strategy. It has been telling developing countries that there is not much difference between the two superpowers, leaving the implication that only (Red) China can be trusted to defend the interests of poor countries.-by the Associated Press.
Dr. Chang: Analyzes Peiping motives. (File photo)
Reunification Now?
'Peiping's trap is to persuade us to trade our legitimate status for autonomy... that would never become reality.'
An interview with Dr. Chang King-yuh, director of the ROC's Institute of International Relations.
Dr. Chang, Communist China has repeatedly trumpeted a proposal calling for "peaceful reunification" of Taiwan with the mainland. What do you see as the purpose of these moves?
• I would like to begin with an analysis of Communist China's political warfare activities and the philosophy behind such activities.
First, over the past 32 years the Chinese Communists have regarded themselves as a new regime and the government of the Republic of China as a remnant force that will eventually be reunified with the new regime. The reason for use of a "peaceful offensive" in recent years, I think, is that this approach entails the least cost and risk and the most benefit to the Communists; it avoids the risk of damage that would come from military action.
". . .. As long as one works hard, tomorrow is bound to be a better day than today."
In addition, the use of a "peaceful offensive" gives Communist China an image of reasonableness in international society. From the international view point, Communist China is now taking a rather low-keyed and conciliatory posture. They want to convey the impression of making a friendly gesture by offering concessions or compromises that they will never fulfill. Their reasoning is that if we do not cooperate with them in negotiating a "peaceful reunification," the ROC government will be seen as a deterrent to reunification and our image in international society will suffer.
Secondly, their proposition is that if peaceful contacts or even negotiations between the two sides actually do come about, this will generate a feeling in international society that, in general, the China issue can be solved. Should such a feeling be engendered, then the world's other parties will deem it unnecessary to maintain the legal status of the ROC and arms sales to us; they will think that such moves will hamper the reunification process. This will isolate us from the international community.
Thirdly, Communist China wants to soften our anti-Communist stance. If we step into the so-called national reunification trap that they have devised, the people here might gradually forget the cause of building a modern China with democratic social and political systems. Instead, the people would only think about how to survive peacefully with Communist China while maintaining our own armed forces and economic well-being.
Peiping's trap is to persuade us to trade our legitimate status as a de facto entity for autonomy under the Communist regime - an autonomy that would never become reality. The ultimate goal of Communist China is to include Taiwan as part of itself. The objective of their current political offensive is to inform the international community that as a large power they are offering to share political authority with a small power, but that the small power is resisting. They seek to create an image of Taiwan as being irrational.
In my personal view, our struggle of the past three decades has not been merely to create and preserve the prosperous way of life in Taiwan. If that is the cause for our struggle, then it will have no lasting success. The cause of our national endeavor, ever since the Opium War, has been to find a way that will enable this nation to grow as strong as other nations.
In the past 32 years, the two regimes separated by the Taiwan Straits have been implementing their political and economic systems independently and autonomously, without large-scale warfare or external provocation My question is this: Which side performs better, and which one carries out policies that are in line with the present and future needs of the Chinese people?
I would say that although we are situated in an adverse environment and lack various resources, our achievements - economical, political, and social are recognized by all detached observers. The history of Communist rule over the past 32 years, in contrast, is chronicled with numerous so-called class struggles. Since the Communist theory of progress is based on class struggle, Peiping has launched many mass persecutions on the mainland. An article in the Feb., 1981, issue of a mainland Chinese periodical entitled "Economic Management" said that the death rate in mainland China was 1 percent in 1957, and that this jumped to 2.5 percent in 1960. This means that there were 10.3 million more Chinese on the mainland who lost their lives in 1960.
An article in the International Herald Tribune reported that during the "three hardship years" of 1959-1961, 20 million people lost their lives. Considering the tragic years of the Cultural Revolution and the persecution of intellectuals, the history of Communist China over the past 32 years chronicles a time of calamity for the Chinese people. How can we say that the Chinese Communists have adopted a political system that is suitable for the Chinese people?
The economic well-being, opportunities for education, and political stability are better in Taiwan now than they have ever been before. We have found here the political system that is best for the Chinese people.
I think that the Communists ought to think about what they have done in the past, and change the political system that has led to so much bloodshed. When that happens, talk about reunification will become more realistic. As it is now - with Peiping putting so much emphasis on Marxism-Leninism, socialist ways, Communist Party leadership, and proletarian totalitarianism - who could believe that they would allow autonomy and private ownership in Taiwan?
We welcome the idea of reunification, and this would naturally become a reality if only Peiping would correct its Marxist-Leninist mistakes.
Are statements made by our government leaders rebutting Peiping's reunification overture being accepted by the international community?
• We have our own standpoint, and people in foreign countries have theirs. They might not accept our statements completely; and for fear of offending Communist China, they might not agree with our principles. But just because they disagree with us does not mean that we are wrong.
We can counter Peiping's political warfare by letting people know that we are a free, democratic, and open society which stresses free enterprise and friendly relations with other nations.
In January 1979, Premier Y.S. Sun made an explicit request to Communist China to return private property to people on the mainland, to abolish communes, and to allow basic freedoms. That request, I think, is a package of the proposals which we expect Peiping to observe. In short, we want Peiping to give up the tenets of Marxism and Leninism.
All the Communists have done in the face of their mounting dissension, however, is to make technical - not strategic - adjustments. So long as the ROC exists it will be a source of pressure on Peiping; and as long as the way we seek is regarded as reasonable and proper, our goal will eventually be attained.
Some foreign governments have been known to put pressure on our government to negotiate with the Communists. Will this pressure continue to be applied?
• Our government policy is clear: we want to open up neither trade nor postal relations with Communist China, and so the possibility of negotiations is nil.
Will Peiping's political warfare make it more difficult for us to acquire weapons and build up friendly relations with other nations?
• Frankly, yes - but not too badly. Communist China will continue to make trouble for us, and its existence alone is an annoyance. But negotiations with the Communists would not alleviate these problems; it would only make them worse.
Will negotiations be possible if Peiping promises to give up Communism?
• My opinion is that if only Premier Sun's demands are followed, then unification will follow naturally. What the people need is a free nation; if the Communists bring that about, then there will be no grounds for hostility or confrontation. - reprinted from the Economic News.