The famine on the Communist-controlled Chinese mainland, the seriousness of which was first brought to the attention of the whole world several months ago, is still threatening hundreds of millions of people with starvation. The Chinese Communists themselves once admitted that the famine was the worst in more than one hundred years; yet, when the rest of the world began to pay attention to it and talk of devising ways and means for the relief of the famine sufferers, they immediately tried to minimize its seriousness. The truth, however, has already become known to all people on this side of the Bamboo Curtain and can no longer be concealed from us.
Aside from what the Communists had earlier admitted, information about the true conditions on the Chinese mainland leaked out through foreign visitors to Peiping and refugees in Hongkong and Macao. There are two other facts which serve to prove the seriousness of the food shortage on the mainland: first, the Communist decision to allow food parcels to be mailed to the mainland; second, the Communists' purchases of wheat from Canada and Australia.
In view of the serious famine on the mainland, one cannot but wonder what factors have brought it about. Suffice it to say that the present famine on the Chinese mainland is largely man-made. The Communists have been talking about natural disasters, including drought, but even drought is at least partly due to the inefficiency of the Peiping regime. Obviously, any area suffering from drought cannot be hard hit if there is a good irrigation system. But there are two other factors which have made matters much worse.
The first is the fact that the Chinese Communists, ever since they came to power, have been exporting foodstuffs to Soviet Russia and the other satellite countries in exchange for munitions, machinery and other supplies. This has been going on for over ten years despite the fact that China is a country which has never been self-sufficient in foodstuffs. In ordinary times when the country has good harvests, the adverse effect created by the exportation of foodstuffs cannot be very serious, but in the years when there are crop failures on the mainland such exports are bound to aggravate the food shortage. At the present moment, when the people on the mainland have already been suffering from an unprecedented famine for many months, the Communists are reported to be still continuing the exportation of foodstuffs.
The second factor is the unreasonable rationing system of the Communists, under which the people on the mainland have never been given enough food. Even in the days when agricultural production was carried on under the system of collective farms, the farmers did not have enough to eat. No matter how hard they worked, they were deprived of the fruits of their labor, and what they were permitted to retain for their own use was barely enough to enable them to keep body and soul together. In the meantime, they saw shiploads and trainloads of food-stuffs being sent abroad while they themselves, who had produced those foodstuffs, were actually starving. What added to their bitterness was the fact that large quantities of foodstuffs were allowed to mold and rot in the granaries owing to the inefficiency and mismanagement of Communist officials. With the introduction of the so-called commune system the situation became much worse. The farmers were not only unable to enjoy the fruits of their labor but no longer had any family life to speak of. Their homes were broken up and they had to eat at public dining halls where the worst possible kind of food was served.
Under such circumstances, it was but natural that the farmers lost all interest in agricultural production. Drought or no drought, they saw no reason why they should work hard to produce something which they themselves could not hope to enjoy. They had no more incentive to do their best to produce bumper crops. The Communists are reported to have virtually given up the commune system and gone back to the old system of collective farms. No matter what temporary changes they may effect in their policy, there can hardly be any substantial improvement in the living conditions of the farmers and, for that matter, of the people as a whole. As a matter of fact, it has been reported that in recent weeks the Communists have further reduced the rations for the people, including both the rural population and urban residents. An adult is now given only a few ounces of rice per day and two or three ounces of edible oil per month.
Serious as the famine on the Chinese mainland is, the lot of the starving people can certainly be ameliorated to no small extent if foodstuffs and other relief supplies are allowed to be brought into the Peiping regime. The Communists, however, are assuming a most illogical attitude. Instead of accepting with alacrity and gratitude the foodstuffs offered by the outside world, they claim that no help of any sort is needed. In mid-February this year, the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva, which coordinates the activities of the national Red Cross societies in international rescue operations, cabled to the Red Cross Society in Peiping with reference to press reports concerning famine on the Chinese mainland, asking for information with a view to finding out whether any relief aid was necessary. The Communist Red Cross Society replied that "although our rural areas suffered serious natural calamities in the past two years, there has never been a famine." The Communist reply further stated that Peiping "was fully capable of overcoming temporary difficulties caused by natural calamities." From this it may be seen that the Chinese Communists attach more importance to saving their own face than to saving the lives of the starving people on the mainland.
Truth to tell, face-saving is not the sole motive of the Chinese Communists in rejecting relief supplies from the outside world. An even more important motive is their desire to reduce the population on the mainland through starvation. In a speech delivered at the annual convention of the Free China Relief Association held in Taipei on April 4, Vice President Chen Cheng pointed out that the Peiping regime had launched an inhuman drive to exterminate the "undesirable" elements of the population. That the Vice President's statement was not a groundless charge is evidenced by a UPI dispatch from Washington dated April 3, in which Walter Briggs was quoted as having said in a report published in the New York Herald-Tribune of April 2 that the critical food shortage on the Chinese mainland had already resulted in a starvation toll exceeding 5,000,000. On our part, we are inclined to believe that this figure is likely to be an understatement of the truth.
From what has been said above we can draw but one conclusion: the starving people on the Chinese mainland cannot hope for deliverance from their tragic fate unless the tyrannical Peiping regime is overthrown.
A New Trend of Appeasement
President Kennedy refuted on April 12 an Associated Press report from London that he had agreed with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to abandon the long-standing U. S. policy of shelving the so-called question of Chinese representation this year. It is heartening to note that in his statement the American President has made an emphatical denial of any change of the U. S. position on the moratorium formula. However, we still view with concern the President's use of " Formosa" in referring to the people and government of the Republic of China, which has been the official name of this country ever since its founding in 1911. We also noted with apprehension U. S. Undersecretary Chester Bowles' statement in a television interview on April 9, in which he did not conceal that there exists "a kind of two-China policy" in the United States. It will be remembered that it is the Republic of China which signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States in 1954. In reading the President's remarks together with the Undersecretary's statement, it seems to be difficult for us to believe that the President's use of "Formosa" is entirely casual. We are apprehensive that a new trend of appeasement, namely, a two-China policy, is taking shape in the United States. Although this new trend seems to be advocated by some well-intentioned but short-sighted people as a new tactics to tackle the so-called China issue, it will, in effect, achieve what the Communists have so far failed to, namely, the United States recognition and United Nations admission of the Chinese Communist regime.
It is understandable that the United States, foreseeing the difficulty in the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, is now seeking a new formula which will prove to the Afro-Asian group that it is not the United States that obstructs Peiping's entry into the United Nations but the Peiping regime that refuses to compromise with the United States.
Although the use of this formula may result in the rejection by the Peiping regime to join the UN, it would have the effect to keep the door open for the Chinese Communists to come in any time they wish to.
The United States does not appear to have realized that the entry of the Chinese Communists under whatever condition will be equally disastrous to herself and to the Republic of China. To the United States, the entry of the Chinese Communists into the United Nations would mean the transfer of the U. N. leadership from the United States to the Communist bloc. No one else would be so naive as Great Britain and India to think that seating the Chinese Communists in the United Nations would make them behave as a peace-loving nation. Insofar as the Republic of China is concerned, the admission of the Chinese Communists to the United Nations and any change of China's representation in the United Nations would mean a severe blow to her. It would shatter the hope of liberating the hundreds of millions of the Chinese people on the mainland and drive the other fourteen million overseas Chinese to the camp of the Communists.
The Republic of China is one of the founding members of the United Nations. During all these years, it has faithfully discharged its obligations under the Charter. Any move to compromise the position of the Republic of China in the United Nations or to restrict her representation will be strongly resented not only by the government and people of the Republic of China but also by other law-abiding members of the free world. The United States' act of grace will be ridiculed by the Communists as the belated confession of a sinful nation. It is indeed inconceivable that at such a crucial period of fighting between Democracy and Communism, the United States should have given any signal to appease the Chinese Communists who have not shown any change of their hostility against her either in words or in deeds. This signal would in the long run lead to the sacrifice of her long-time ally, the Republic of China. If the sacrifice of an ally could secure the goodwill and forgiveness of an avowed enemy, the United States might as well do it in her own interest. Yet, since there is no such guarantee in sight, the United States is urged to think thrice before she chooses to change her present China policy. For any change of her present policy in favor of the Chinese Communists would be tantamount to abandon a tested ally and risk the total loss of her prestige among all free nations in Asia, which will, no doubt, take the vicissitudes of the relations between the United States and the Republic of China as an object lesson to themselves.
Cubans Fight for Freedom
By now it may safely be said that the ill-starred Cuban revolution has completely failed and its failure is in no small degree due to the might of Soviet tanks, guns and jets. It is deplorable that the revolutionary leaders made a gross mistake in miscalculating the military strength of the Soviet-backed Castro regime and their own ability to induce defection from the Cuban populace. It appears that the invaders gave very little time for their compatriots in Cuba to respond to the liberty call, even if the latter had wished to join the revolutionary forces.
In spite of the defeat which the free Cubans have suffered at the hands of Fidel Castro, there are still good reasons to take an optimistic view of the Cuban struggle against communism. Our optimism is based on the fact that at least the temporary setback of the free Cubans has reflected the widespread discontent of the Cubans toward the Castro regime, displayed the will of the Cubans to fight for freedom and demonstrated the sizable strength of the anti-Castro forces which are now still fighting on Cuban soil. It is true that Castro has successfully crushed the revolutionary forces with the help of Soviet tanks and planes; that thousands of Cuban sympathizers were arrested and thrown into prison and that a large number of anti-Castro prisoners have been relentlessly massacred. But these facts have also unmistakably indicated the lack of the Cuban people's sympathy for the Castro regime and the scantiness of their support to it. As Castro's betrayal of Cuban interests becomes clearer and clearer to the Cuban people, it will be only a matter of time before all the freedom-loving Cubans turn against him and get rid of a national traitor whose primary aim is to serve the cause of international communism.
A lesson, however, may be drawn from the failure of the Cuban revolution which has fully revealed the lack of solidarity among the American nations. It is pitiable that during the short period of the ill-fated invasion, none of the Latin American countries has come out to lend its moral or material support to the Cuban freedom-fighters. This is a very serious lesson. In order to avoid a similar fate from befalling any American nations someday, all American nations should view such a freedom movement in any American country as a matter of vital interests that concerns them all. As President Kennedy pointed out in his speech be fore the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 20, 1961, "a nation of Cuba's size is less a menace to the survival of the United States than it was a base for subversion directed against the other free countries in the Western Hemisphere." Rightly he said: "It was not principally U.S. interests and U.S. security but rather the interests and security of other nations of the American continent which faced the greater danger." We hope all the American nations will bear these words in mind.
The free people of Cuba need not be pessimistic over their recent setback in their endeavor to regain the freedom for their fatherland. Many free peoples of the world have extended profound sympathy to them and have expressed great admiration of their heroic struggle against the Castro regime. They should feel relieved to hear the U. S. President's pledge "to face up to its basic obligation" to oppose the exterior Communist penetration. Only when they refuse to abandon their gallant fight for freedom, the free world is certain to come to their help within a very short time. No revolution can succeed without temporary setbacks. Tyranny can never withhold freedom indefinitely. And democracy will triumph over communism just as certain as day follows night.