Lauding the decision of the Eisenhower Administration to break off diplomatic relations with Cuba as a wise though long overdue move which had the support of all free nations, the local papers saw in it a sign of the deepening crisis in the Caribbean Sea in the days to come.
The severance of diplomatic relations with Cuba as announced by President Eisenhower on January 3, declared the Central Daily News in its editorial on January 6, "is a step in the right direction which will greatly boost the prestige of the United States in Central and South America on the one hand and enhance the confidence of the Asian peoples in her on the other."
Will the United States just stop at breaking off relations with Cuba or will she take a more decisive step later? The arbitrary action taken by the Castro Administration to limit the US embassy in Havana to eleven persons and to grant forty-eight hours for the entire embassy staff, with the exception of eleven, to leave Cuba, continued the paper, "is something, which goes far beyond the limit of forbearance of any country. Thus the counter-measure taken by the US Government is not unexpected. It is reasonable to assume that Castro will not be satisfied with driving out American diplomatic personnel alone in his struggle against Uncle Sam. In case he should take a more drastic step, what would the US Government do? The answer to this question only the new American Administration can provide. Therefore, it is quite meaningless to speculate on it now."
The Red Summit held in Moscow at the end of last year, pointed out the paper, "laid down a new tactical line, namely, to encircle Western Europe and isolate the United States by creating disturbances in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The trend of events in Cuba is no doubt the first move taken by the Communist aggressors to Sovietize the Western Hemisphere on the strength of this new line based on 'non-peaceful change.' In taking this step, the Communist bloc has concerted its all-out efforts. Any neglect and wavering on the part of the US Government and people will, therefore, have grave consequences. Now that the American Government has made its firm stand amply clear, we are waiting to see what her next step will be."
Speculating on the same topic, the Shin Sheng Pao Daily News declared in its leading article on the same day that "strong as the countermeasure taken by the US Government may seem, it is a passive one forced upon her by Cuba's repeated provocations."
As the situation now stands, the paper went on to say, "it is crystal clear that the Communist bloc is ready to challenge the United States not only in Cuba but also in other parts of the globe. If the United States had taken a more resolute stand in both Cuba and Laos, the growth of communism there would have been nipped in the bud. Vacillation and delay will only bring nearer the war which Uncle Sam has obviously tried to avert. In this connection, it may not be out of place to point out that other free nations are no less fearful of Communist aggression than the United States does. They dare not stand up to resist the Communist challenge just because they fear that the trouble would recoil upon themselves should the United States fail to back them up.
"We are pretty sure that if the United States can make up her mind to assume the responsibility to resist Communist aggression, she will have whole-hearted support of all free nations. For this reason, it behooves the United States as the leader of the free world to stand firm, not to be afraid of being involved in troubles, and least of all, to entertain any illusion of appeasing and coexisting with the Communist world."
Regarding the breakoff of her diplomatic ties with Cuba by the United States as a wise move, the China Daily News editorialized on January 7 that "the wild and unsupported charge hurled at the United States by Castro at the time when the local war in Laos is going on and just before the inauguration of the Kennedy Administration is beyond any shadow of doubt Communist-inspired."
"As we see it," continued the paper, "the significance of this historical step adopted by the Eisenhower Administration is twofold: (1) the resolute action taken by the United States will lead other states in the Western Hemisphere to follow suit and thereby isolate Cuba in that part of the world; (2) it will help enhance the confidence of the free nations in Uncle Sam. If the latter can follow it with a more determined action, it will be a fatal blow to the Communist aggressive moves in different parts of the globe. At the time when the Communists are intensifying their aggressive move in Latin America, let us hope that all states there will close ranks in their common struggle against communism. The United States should stand up against any Communist challenge. Only thus can she checkmate Communist aggression, win the victory in the crucial struggle between the two opposing camps, and preserve the peace of both the American continent and the world."
"The breaking of US-Cuban ties not only represents a high tide in the worsening relations between the two countries but also presages a drastic change in the relations among the states in Latin America." Thus said the United Daily News editorially on January 6.
This historical step taken by the Eisenhower Administration, the paper went on to say, "immediately brings to the fore the following questions. First, will US-Cuban relations remain as they are or will they further deteriorate? Should they go from bad to worse, would it lead to open conflict between them? Secondly, if there will be no war between them, what will be the fate of the Guantanamo naval base of the United States in Cuba? Thirdly, if the relations between the two countries continue to deteriorate, will Cuba withdraw from the Organization of American States, and denounce the Rio de Janeiro Pact? Should Cuba take such steps, would Castro give open support to the anti-American movement or even instigate revolutions in various countries of Latin America? It goes without saying that only time can provide answers to these questions. Be that as it may, the rupture of diplomatic ties between the two American states serves as a warning that the crisis in the Caribbean Sea is deepening."
Commenting on the same topic on the same day, the China Post observed: "The US action to break off formal relations with Cuba is significant in several respects. It shows, in the first place, that the United States is determined not to be pushed around by others and that she will take appropriate action to give expression to her feelings at the end of her patience. Secondly, the severance of diplomatic relations with Cuba is evidence that an outgoing Administration in Washington is capable of vigorous action even in the last weeks of its authority and that those who count upon an interregnum in the conduct of American foreign policy between the election of a new President in November and his inauguration in January of the next year are miserably wrong. Thirdly', the action taken by President Eisenhower will enhance US prestige not only in Latin America but throughout the whole world. All these are healthy developments which it behooves us to note with care.
"It is interesting to learn that Secretary of State Christian A. Herter has asked Mr. Dean Rusk, his successor under the incoming Democratic Administration, in advance whether the Kennedy government wished to associate itself with the US break of relations with Cuba. Though Mr. Rusk's reply after consultation with Mr. Kennedy was that in the absence of complete information on all the relevant factors the new Administration did not feel that it could participate in the decision, the very fact that Mr. Rusk has been consulted bespeaks President Eisenhower's eagerness to have by-partisan support for important policy decisions he is called upon to make in the last days of his tenure of office. Mr. Rusk's refusal to commit himself and President-elect Kennedy in one way or another is only to be expected in the circumstances but should not be taken as an indication that the incoming Democratic Administration is opposed to President Eisenhower's action. As a matter of fact, we have reason to believe that when Mr. Kennedy is inaugurated two weeks from now, he will continue not to have any formal dealings with Cuba unless Castro mends his ways.
"The U.S. severance of diplomatic relations with Cuba is likely to lead to similar actions by other Latin American countries. If that happens, it will pave the way for the gradual isolation of the Castro dictatorship and thereby make it more difficult for the international Communists to make use of Havana as a convenient center to carryon infiltration and subversive activities in Central and South America."
Terming the statement made by the Cuban government following the rupture of diplomatic ties with the United States a vicious pitfall, the China News editorialized on January 13 that "on the other hand, it attempted to divide the American people. By denouncing the Republican administration and casting a coquettish glance at the Democrats, Castro obviously hoped to win goodwill for his own cause and create antipathy for the Republicans among the ranks of the Democratic Party. This is why the Cuban government radio and television network deliberately tried to clear Kennedy of responsibility for the rupture of Cuban-US ties by emphasizing that Kennedy did not participate in the decision to break off relations.
"On the other hand, the Castro regime attempted to place the blame for Cuba's feud with the US on the Eisenhower administration. In so doing, it tried to portray the latter as unscrupulous and aggressive in nature. Castro's hypocritical gesture of good will for Kennedy is intended to present a sharp contrast between the outgoing and incoming US administrations. "Castro's double-barrelled tactic is in fact nothing new. He is merely faithfully adhering to the Kremlin line. Recently, Soviet leaders ,while denigrating the present US government, tried to make-believe that they were looking forward to improving relations with the Kennedy government."
The Manila Conference
In the face of the tense situation in Asia, editorialized the Central Daily News on January 18, "the meeting of the foreign ministers of the four anti-Communist countries in Manila is a welcome news. At a time when the Laotion situation is in the balance, let us hope that they will take up the Communist intrigue in Asia for discussion and take effective measures to cope with it."
The chief task of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, the paper went on to say, "is to preserve the security of Southeast Asia. Upon its success or failure in dealing with the Laotian crisis depends the value of its existence. Such being the case, it is hoped that the Manila meeting will map out ways and means to give its support to this organization so as to dispel whatever misgivings the peoples in free Asian countries may have had towards the United States."
The anti-Communist struggle, pointed out the paper, "is global in scale. In this common struggle all free nations must unite as one man. The Asian nations have never underestimated the importance of Europe. It behooves the European countries to realize the importance of Asia. Now that the Communist bloc is aiming its arrow of aggression at Asia, only by marshalling all forces of the free world can we hope to win the victory in the fight against our common foe. Thus, the foreign ministers' meeting should do everything possible to promote the solidarity of all anti-Communist countries in Asia on the one hand and to win the positive support of the Western democracies in their common effort to deal a fatal blow to the Communists in the Asian battlefield on the other so as to maintain the peace and security of the whole free world."
Attaching great significance to the Foreign Ministers' Conference in Manila, the Shin Sheng Pao Daily News in two consecutive articles on January 16 and 18 respectively speculated that "the motive for the calling of this meeting is the result of the critical situation in Laos and the failure of SEATO to effectively deal with it. Such being the case, the most urgent task facing the conferees is how to strengthen East Asia so as to keep it free from further Communist aggression. As we see it, there are several alternatives to achieve this end. The first is to invite the Republic of China, which is a strong military power, to participate in the SEATO. The second alternative is to form a four-power military alliance, i.e., an alliance of the Republic of China, the Republic of the Philippines, - the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Vietnam. As both the Philippines and Vietnam are members of the SEATO, this military alliance is in a way closely related to it.
"However, whatever common security measure will be decided upon by the participants in the conference must have the consent and support of the United States which has treaty obligations with all these four powers. What policy the new United States administration will adopt in East Asia remains yet to be seen. But in principle the United States should give her support to the Asian peoples in their defense of Asia, build up their ability for self-defense and promote their mutual cooperation."
Commenting on the same topic, the China Post, in two successive editorials on January 16 and 18 stated: "The four countries that will take part in the forthcoming Manila Conference are all anti-Communist, and potential victims of Communist aggression. That is a fact of major importance which binds them together and insures a successful outcome of the impending meeting. Though not much can be expected from a conference lasting for only two days, it will pave the way for further consultations and perhaps agreements, among the participating nations, looking to ward concerted action to safeguard their own security."
Since the SEATO, continued the paper, "ha failed to take action to meet the critical. situation in Laos, the Four-Power Foreign Ministers' Conference due to convene in Manila this week is all the more significant. It is hoped that out of the exchange of opinions by the Foreign Ministers of the four anti-Communist nations of Asia there will be greater solidarity and unity among the participants. Nothing would be better for the cause of freedom in this part of the world if the Manila meeting eventually leads to some mutual security arrangements among these purely Asian countries."
Coming as it did after the non-Asian members of the SEATO had failed to agree on the steps to be taken in Laos and meeting on the eve of President Kennedy's inauguration, declared the China News editorially on January 17, "the Manila conference could not have been better timed for dramatic effect.
Regarding the refusal of Thailand and Pakistan to take part in the meeting as a matter of regret, the paper continued, "throughout the Laotian crisis, Thailand has advocated a strong policy and was disappointed at SEATO's ineffectiveness. It stands to reason that its government would welcome such an opportunity to exchange views with not only the Republic of the Philippines, a fellow Asian signatory power, but also with such resolute anti-Communist nations as the
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Vietnam, the last mentioned being also greatly concerned over what is happening in neighboring Laos. It is hoped that the Thai foreign minister would find time to attend the last part of the conference.
"In the case of Pakistan, it is somewhat difficult. Though also a member of the SEATO, it is comparatively remote from the immediate scene of trouble. Besides, since it has recognized the Peiping regime, its foreign minister could not very well sit down at the same conference table with the Chinese foreign minister, how much he may agree with the idea of calling such a conference.
"Another point which has not been overlooked is that thus far Washington has kept conspicuously quiet on the Manila Conference. True, an old administration is bowing out and a new one is stepping in this Friday and everybody is busy. There is, however, no reason to suppose that the United States has any reservation about the wisdom of the four Asian foreign ministers in deciding to meet in consultations and to exchange views on matters of common interest in their region.
"One would think that as the governments which the four ministers represent are all allied with the United States by bilateral security treaties, and in the case of the Philippines, additionally through the SEATO, anything the four friendly nations can do to improve their lateral relations can not but help strengthen the free world's position in the Western Pacific as a whole. This being the case, it is hoped that the United States would soon come out with a statement endorsing the Manila conference.
"It is of course s till too early to tell how much the four foreign ministers can accomplish. One inescapable impression is that the conference has been called in too short a notice and as a result there has not been enough time for any of the participants to make thorough preparations. Another is that the two-day duration is too brief to permit any detailed exchange of views on important matters.
"All in all however, this is the first meeting of its kind among free Asian nations. Fruitful discussions this time may pave the way for more useful conference in the future. What really matters is that the Manila conferences should begin and end on a note of solidarity so as to put the Chinese Communists on notice."