China – At Issue

February 27, 1966
Plainfield

China – At Issue

Does our foreign policy toward Mainland China need thorough re-appraisal and new direction? Under the compulsion of present trends, are China and the United States speeding on a collision course, the impact of which will be named World War III? (That is, if there are any survivors sufficiently free from radiation sickness or other effects of war to be able to write history.) There is some indication that our U.S. foreign policy-makers are sure that the current foreign policy is supported and justified at the grass-roots – by the people that is. Is there wide-spread support for the notion that the correct and safe policy is one of hostility toward Mainland China, friendship toward the Nationalist regime on Formosa, combined with the belief that the Communist government on the Mainland cannot endure and deserves no place in the parliament of the world, the United Nations?

Such may be the prevailing belief, although how this is accurately established is not clear to me. But I do know that many dissenting voices question these assumptions. Last May in the General Assembly of the U.U.A., the delegates voted to recommend to the societies that the question of the admission of Communist China be the subject of study and discussion among the societies prior to the taking of a position by U.U.A. delegates, possibly at this year’s meeting.

The Adult Programs Committee of this Society, Lew Roebuck, Chairman, has made available the discussion guide, "At Issue". One thoroughly interesting discussion has been conducted under the competent leadership of Bernie Haggerty. Next Thursday evening, March 3 at 8 p.m., there will be another discussion meeting. Under the auspices of our U.U.A. U.N. office, there have been two well-planned seminars, one for ministers and envoys, attended by Mrs. Shea and me; and a seminar just concluded with several attending at least some of the sessions.

In an effort to support the continuing discussion about the merits and flaws of our U.S. foreign policy toward Mainland China, I have grouped my presentation around the points of a resolution which appears on the tentative agenda of the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association scheduled for May in Hollywood, Florida. Whether or not this resolution appears on the final agenda depends on the vote of those
societies which conduct a parish poll on these resolutions.

The proposed resolution reads as follows:

"China
Affirming that one of the major goals of international diplomacy should be the reduction of tension between the United States and the People’s Republic of China; and

Noting that the United States should initiate steps which may reduce that tension without sacrificing its own security,

The Unitarian Universalist Association urges the Government of the United States:

1: To support the seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations.

2: To establish normal cultural, economic and travel relations with the People’s Republic of China, culminating in full diplomatic relations.

3: To seek immediately the inclusion of the People’s Republic of China in world disarmament talks.

4: To propose an internationally-supervised plebiscite of the people of Taiwan to determine their status, including the creation of an independent nation if they choose.

The Unitarian Universalist Association also urges the Government of Canada to support the seating of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations and to widen its relation with the People’s Republic of China.”

However, some background must be filled in before these propositions can have a proper setting for support or disagreement.

Mainland China is a Communist nation with an intense bellicose attitude toward the United States. But China is also one of the most ancient of civilizations, possessing a continuity of sophisticated culture unmatched on the planet. Historically, China is intertwined with three of the world's great religions—Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. To discount the influence of these religions is to underestimate the tenacity of deep cultural roots. Years of study would fail to do full justice to the complexities and changes of Chinese religions and social forces, but no nation can be fully understood just by appraising where it is, because there is need to understand where it has been. The past is in the present, even as the future will never be disconnected from the present.

If we are to understand China, there is one reality to be accepted. While China records a continuous tradition for 4000 years; and for 2500 years maintained a most sophisticated civilization, this does not imply that these Asian peoples hold to all the values that we in the West may prize. Since the Enlightenment and the Age of Revolutions in the 18th century, we have emphasized freedom, individual rights, the civil liberties of the person. Freedom to us is represented by the right of the individual to dissent, to have his dissent made known, to vote for choices in secret ballot, and to be free from punishment or restraint by the State for unorthodox views about politics, economics, religion, education and moral values.

In order to understand why the orthodox, Maoist Communism in China is unlikely to breed internal revolt, there must be recognition that through thousands of years of Chinese culture, the subordination of the individual to the group has been accepted largely without protest. The family was always the core and basic unit of Chinese society. From earliest dynasties down to the Communist regime, the father was absolute ruler of the family. He even had power of life and death over his sons. The filial piety of children to the father has been the prime dimension of social life, the model for dynasties and regional governments.

Confucian scholars thought the state should be ruled like a great family. The emperor's power over his subject was like that of the father over the son: unlimited power of the father, unquestioning obedience by the son. Out of ancient ancestor worship, which Confucius incorporated in his code of ethics for social behavior, there developed a centralized government bureaucracy which represented the most complete blend of religion and the state in world history. When powerful dynasties ruled, the emperor had the power to change the gods who were to be worshiped. One scholar of Oriental philosophy wrote, "Confucius believed and taught that ‘the happiness of human beings and their right to peaceful existence was his lifelong concern – and he realized that this would be unattainable without the foundations of a State which would consecrate itself to the well-being of its subjects. Justice, discipline and benignity were the marks of a good government.’” (Grant – ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY) Notice that in Confucius’ view, individual freedom was not the concern of a good government. We would insist that this was a prime value but if we are to understand China in Asia, we must recognize that other values emerged there.

The second volume of the UNESCO World History, p. l72: "From earliest times there was never any dualism between the religious and political powers. ...Chinese religious feeling went much less deep than Indian. But above all there was no state religion, only a state cult of a mainly civil nature like the Roman. ...the Son of Heaven is head of family, state and universe, unique as the sun is unique in the sky – a rigid monist conception which excludes the religious concerns of the individual...."

There seems to be general agreement among students of Chinese culture that the people of China have always been more prone to consider the meaning of life, rather than the meaning of individual lives. We may disagree emphatically, but we should recognize the differing point of view prevailing there.

In China, there is a striking feature of geography and climate which has always tended to emphasize group obedience and united effort, at the expense of individualism. From the earliest of times, China has been an agriculturally-dominated civilization, the principal necessity being a never-ending struggle against periodic and catastrophic inundations of the river systems. The Yellow River, particularly, is famous for the vast quantities of water which pour down in times of flood. In order to survive against the onslaughts of the inundating rivers, the most highly co-ordinated efforts were necessary. Canals had to be rebuilt quickly; fields reclaimed from flood and silt without delay. In order to maintain survival of the agricultural system, highly cooperative efforts and coercion were necessary to organize large numbers of peasants to fight the river and maintain the crops. So in China, the subordination of the individual to the group has roots in religion, government, climate and family.

This attitude of unquestioned allegiance to the authority is reflected in Chinese Scripture. In the "Li Ki" (Ballou, BIBLE OF THE WORLD, p. 381):

"Hence the ruler is he to whose brightness men look; he does not seek to brighten men. It is he whom men support; he does not seek to support men. It is he whom men serve, he does not seek to serve men. If the ruler were to seek to brighten men, he would fall into error. If he were to seek to nourish men, he would be unequal to his task. If he were to seek to serve men, he would be giving up his position. Therefore the people imitate the ruler and we have their self-government; they nourish the ruler, and they find their security in doing so; they serve the ruler and find their distinction in doing so...."

This ancient and continuous subordination of the individual is implicit also in the couplet from the works of the famed sage, Mencius, the most influential disciple of Confucius:

"May the rain come down upon our public fields,
And then upon our private field," (Ibid, p. 442)

Parenthetically, although Vietnam is not my subject today, it is relevant to note that as long ago as 141 B.C.E., the lands we now describe as North and South Vietnam, as well as parts of Korea, were annexed in Chinese imperial expansion. While there have been rebellions, long standing hostility towards China and ages of independence, it is useful to observe that for centuries these war-torn lands absorbed Chinese thought and Chinese culture.

One more observation on which historians seem to concur: while there were occasional contacts with the Western world, the visits of Marco Polo for example, China remained untouched by the radical changes which affected Western culture so deeply. While in the West the conflicts and progress of five centuries – the Renaissance, the Reformation, Industrial Revolution, and political revolutions were completely transforming the role of the individual in society, as well as drastically altering society itself, China remained almost unchanged for 2000 years. The two classes remained – the educated Confucian scholar-gentlemen, who were the landowners, and the poor, illiterate peasants.

Then in the middle and late 19th century, China was suddenly exposed to the dynamics of European revolutionary change, which had taken centuries to take hold in the West. Interestingly enough, the first carriers of revolutionary thought were essentially Conservatives – missionaries teaching a Europeanized gospel, and business men who were opening up Asian markets for industrial goods and seeking new sources of raw materials. Thus within the memory of many persons still living, China, "the sleeping giant," [as] Napoleon called it, has awakened and compressed in decades what in Europe took centuries. The Mandarin empire decayed and fell; The Sun Yat Sen revolution and republic was bravely motivated but ill-starred. There was a temporary and uncertain unity between the Chiang Nationalist forces and the Communist forces. When this relationship ruptured, there was the long march of the Communists, then the terrible bloodletting of the war with Japan, then the post World War II civil war; and the final triumph of the Communists. Most of this drastic change and terrible turbulence happened within the lifetime of all persons my age or older.

One little glimpse of the life of the Chinese Communist hero and leader, Mao Tse Tung, who is the Lenin of the Chinese Revolution: He began his adult career as a primary school teacher. Quite aside from Marxist theories, his hostility must have been intensified by two personal tragedies. His first wife was executed during the revolution; their son was killed in the Korean War.

One more note of background which is contained in a paragraph in a news dispatch from Hong Kong by Seymour Topping (NYT 2/17/66): "American bases of a seemingly permanent character are being built both in South Vietnam and Thailand, and the bulk of U.S. Naval striking power has been moved to Asian waters in what Peking describes as part of a shift from U.S. - Soviet to a U.S. - Chinese confrontation."

There have been abundant criticisms of the failures of the Chinese Communist government to organize effectively and produce in quantity. There have been failures; and I have no doubt that there have been many instances of the cruelties, expediencies and coercions which always characterize totalitarian states. But we would be deceiving only ourselves if we failed to recognize that in less than twenty years, the revolutionists have been the agents of enormous change, industrially and culturally. There have been efforts to alter the patterns of loyalty to the family structure. The degree to which such contrived and sweeping social change may have been effective cannot be known for decades, at least. Those who have been in a position to make some observations believe that the greatest progress has occurred in industrialization, even though much of the machinery for mass industry may be antiquated by our standards. Pressing problems seem to be the growing population combined with the failure of agricultural production to come up to expectations completely. But travelers report that there is no starvation in the cities. The people seem to have a minimum, although not an abundant, diet.

It is against such a backdrop of intricacies that the question of the seating of Mainland China in the United Nations must be decided. We are not required to support or admire the government of China anymore than we are required to support or admire the government of the Soviet Union or Spain or Egypt or Portugal or Albania or Cuba. But the cultural complexities mentioned and subtle political forces are part of the heritage of such an ancient nation and should be recognized. Past performance or present attitudes have not been a bar to membership in the United Nations except in the case of China. That is why I support the first point in the proposed resolution, urging "The United States government to support the seating of the People’s Republic of China."

Earlier this week, (see NYT, 2/23/66), the General Board of the National Council of Churches by a vote of 90 to 3 urged that our government support the seating of Communist China in the United Nations. A few days prior to that the World Council of Churches passed a similar resolution unanimously. Why does our government oppose the seating of Communist China? Marshall Green, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs states the case in AT ISSUE, p.20-22:

"First are the (U.S.) policies directed toward strengthening the security of free world countries, especially those menaced by Communist China; and of promoting the stability and economic growth of these countries; and of promoting unity and cohesion to the extent we can among the countries comprising the free world. Then there are the policies that we pursue directly toward Communist China itself. In essence, these policies boil down to seeking to make clear to Communist China that its external adventures are risky and expensive, while at the same time doing what we can to make possible and attractive a process of change whereby Mainland China will come to adopt a less intolerant view of others.

"We avoid those actions which would tend to strengthen Communist China's position or contribute to the realization of its expansionist goals. Thus, we refuse to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China or to promote its seating in the United Nations. We [have] little to gain and much to lose through such action. As to trade with mainland China, we maintain a complete embargo on trade and financial dealings. We do not prevail on others not to trade with mainland China, but we try to hold the line against trade in strategic items and we have urged our friends not to extend trading terms that amount to aid to Communist China."

Why do so many of our fellow-members in the United Nations disagree with us and our official position? Why is this trend likely to continue? There seems to be some agreement among observers and commentators at the U.N. that the seating of Communist China is only a matter of time, irrespective of the unyielding opposition of the United States. There are two questions involved – first, whether such a vote to seat China requires a 2/3 vote; and then the actual vote on seating. When the question of the necessity of a 2/3 vote was balloted in 1961, the U.S. had a 27 vote margin in favor of this requirement. Last November, however, on the same question, the margin was only seven votes. Therefore, a switch of only four votes or eight abstentions, or some combination of these possibilities, would change the outcome when next the matter is voted, so that only a majority will be required to seat Mainland China.

As far as the vote to seat Communist China is concerned, the rollcall, Nov. 65, disclosed that 47 voted for seating, 47 against, with 20 abstentions. As the U.N. Staff Correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor wrote at the time, "Washington has many means of diplomatic persuasion left. But it is apparent here that some of those means now may have to be bent to finding new policies toward Peking, rather than simply preserving old frontiers."

Why are so many of our allies, as well as enemies, in disagreement with us on this issue? At the U.U.A. U.N. envoy meetings, Mr. Youde of the British delegation to the United Nations made several points which not only explain the position of his government, but to me at least, possess a logic that is formidable. The United Kingdom maintains a doctrine of recognition that operates on the principle that if a government is firmly established, exercises control over its area and tends to remain, the United Kingdom will usually recognize that government. The policy of that government is irrelevant, whether commendable or deplorable. Recognition of the government that is in fact the government is a political principle that does not imply any admiration.

On that basis, the United Kingdom recognized the government of Communist China in January 1950. The judgment was made then that the Communist government was established in China, likely to remain in power and increase in strength. This judgment seems to have been borne out.

Mr. Youde pointed out that the U.K, has not established an ambassador at Peking, but maintains a Charge'd'affaires to work out problems arising from the modest but important trade that the U.K. carries on with China; and and also while travel is restricted there is some amount of it, necessitating the ironing-out of individual difficulties. Furthermore, having an office in Peking is helpful to the all-important process of communication. Then, too, the British protectorate of Hong Kong is entirely dependent on fresh food from China.

When asked how the U.K. reconciles these policies with a vital relationship with the United States, Mr. Youde replied that the United Kingdom has a policy toward China, but also is unwavering in basic support of the United States. Thus, the United Kingdom votes for the requirement of a 2/3 majority before seating Communist China; but votes also for the seating of Communist China.

When queried about the provision in the UN Charter about membership for "peace-loving countries," he pointed out that the United Nations has not succeeded in defining aggression. Whether we like it or not, many member nations of the U.N. do not believe we are a "peace-loving" nation, claiming we have been involved in many more war activities beyond our borders than China has beyond its borders.

Mr. Roger Seydoux, French Ambassador, put forth points difficult to answer: "How can one maintain that it is in conformity with the aims and principles of the United Nations that the latter should be amputated of one of the world's leading powers, with a population equal to a fourth of the population of the globe, an immense territory and considerable actual and potential resources, whose geographical location places it close to regions among the most troubled today, and which furthermore is a nuclear power?" He believes the issues which cannot be effectively dealt with as long as Communist China is not a member of the U.N. include, "Those troubling Asia, disarmament, the effective functioning of the Security Council." (Christian Science Monitor, 11/12/65)

What seems to be a shared opinion among many diplomats at the U.N, is that universality of membership is a necessity for effective functioning. Pope Paul VI in his United Nations speech supported this principle.

On the foregoing and other considerations, I support the seating of Communist China at the U.N. We support and recognize a great many nations who maintain policies we do not approve. Such recognition is much more likely to be a way of co-existence short of war until such time as developments now unforeseen may suggest or compel less hostile confrontations.

So much time has been given to the first point about why I believe our government should re-appraise its policy with a view to supporting the seating of Communist China, or at least, not opposing it, that elaboration of the other provisions of the proposed resolution must be more succinctly stated.

Second, "to establish normal, cultural, economic and travel relations with the People's Republic of China, culminating in full diplomatic relations."

Herman Kahn, whose research institute is mainly supportive of our government's present policies and who is much more the hawk than the dove, wrote this in his book, THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE, "Reciprocal fear itself may make it rational, indeed almost imperative, to strike, even though the fear may be based on mutual misunderstanding."

Possible improvement of communications with Communist China does not imply approval of their regime or their totalitarian government. Such continuing efforts to establish communication would be a rational attempt to begin to provide safeguards against the possibility that mutual misunderstanding may destroy the world through fear. Lack of knowledge increases fear, burgeoning fears sustain and deepen hate.

There seems little doubt that Communist China maintains an unceasing campaign of hate and hostility against the United States. Travelers report that the propaganda is continuous, with the Chinese people barraged with exhortations that the 'Imperialistic U.S." is the savage enemy of the Chinese people and of all peoples striving for a place in the sun. There is some speculation that in order to keep the workers laboring with high nationalistic enthusiasm, the Chinese government needs a devil to keep patriotism high. But the present Chinese regime, much more Stalinist than, say, the present Soviet regime, may be completely persuaded that the U.S. is the imperialistic enemy who must be crushed, according to the rigid orthodoxy of Marxist-Leninist theories.

Under some circumstances, one could take comfort in the notion that Mao Tse Tung and his lesser leaders are aging rapidly and their inevitable replacements possibly may be more reasonable men. But this mutually bellicose stand-off and speak-not now possesses nuclear danger. News dispatches from Tokyo predict that Red China will explode a third atomic bomb within a few months, and test a hydrogen bomb by Fall at the earliest. Analysis of the products of the first atomic explosion disclosed that China possessed a more advanced stage of technology than had been thought possible for them.

In the first paragraph of his analytical conclusions about Red China, Edgar Snow wrote, "One consequence of cutting off communications between Americans and Chinese is that it is no longer necessary for us to think of each other as men and women subject to more or less the same limitations of human possibility."

Why should not our government open our borders to Chinese newspaper representatives, Chinese travelers? Even if Communist China refused to reciprocate for a while, why not take such action unilaterally? One could surmise that Communist China might not permit newspapermen and travelers to come here, but suppose this is a wrong surmise? If there were more first-hand experience being transmitted to the Mainland China, the distorted propaganda which paints us as rapacious, imperialistic war-mongers might not be so persuasive in Asia.

It follows from these suppositions that we should "seek immediately inclusion of the People's Republic of China" in world disarmament talks."

A British representative at the U.N. who had spent some years at the Charge D'Affaires office in Peking reported that the Chinese people are being prepared for a nuclear attack by the United States by constant repetition by the government. Furthermore, and this is more distressing, he believes that Mao Tse Tung and the leaders believe that there is an authentic possibility that the U.S. will strike Mainland China with nuclear bombs.

There are prevailing notions that China is a weak, stumbling, ineffective despotic society. It is totalitarian and its present ways can never be for us. But not to recognize that the Revolution has effected startling changes, including much industrial growth, as well as development of a nuclear device, is to be unseeing of realities. Sometimes the failures of the Chinese program, "the great leap forward," are ridiculed and pointed out as evidence of ineffectiveness and impotence. No doubt there were great mistakes and painful shortages of grain occurred in some years. They had to acquire millions of tons of grain abroad; but it is in point to note that they bought the grain.

No matter how fervently one may reject the Marxist revolutionary ideas which prevail in China, we are short-sighted indeed if we fail to seek ways to include that nation in any authentic attempts to discuss reduction of nuclear arms pointing toward eventual effective world disarmament.

The last point of the proposed resolution involves the most sticky of the issues of the entire complex problem of Chin: "to propose an internationally-supervised plebiscite of the people of Taiwan to determine their status, including the creation of an independent nation if they choose."

One of the most proposed and least likely proposals is the "Two-Chinas" solution. That is, Nationalist China, which took refuge in Taiwan (Formosa) after the triumph of the Chinese Communists, should retain its seat and Mainland or Communist China to be seated as an additional member. This is not a probable outcome, because both Mainland China and Taiwan China are firmly agreed that there is only one China. There is only about one other issue on which they are agreed – that the land in the India border dispute belongs to China.

This is a part of the total issue on which our government is not in the position of being a disinterested party, seeking only that international justice shall prevail. Since the Communists under Mao defeated Chiang and he fled to Formosa, the United States has provided the Chiang government with more than six billion dollars in aid, plus the intervention of the U.S. 7th Fleet to protect the straits between the Mainland and Taiwan. Nevertheless, this is an issue which must be faced, sooner or later. The Communist Chinese refuse to consider the "Two-Chinas" solution because they assert that theirs is the only government of China in fact. Therefore their credentials should be recognized and their delegation seated in both the Security Council and the General Assembly, Taiwan is part of the Republic of China, not a separate island nation is their assertion; and Chang Kai Shek agrees.

The Chiang Kai Shek government, of course, has maintained an opposite position—that they are the legitimate government of all China in exile, but the legitimate government, nevertheless. Therefore the present government in Taiwan is adamant in refusing to consider a "Two Chinas" answer to the problem.

In the first evening’s discussion about China, this aspect of the problem seemed to hold much interest because if our government should consider any re-appraisal of its foreign policy toward China, the problem of Taiwan cannot he sidetracked.

Taiwan was a Japanese colony from 1895, when it was taken from China, until 1945 when the Japanese defeat was final. At that time there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Taiwan was part of the sovereign territory of Mainland China; and immediate post-war diplomacy accepted this as factual. It was only when Chiang took refuge on the island that some UN diplomats conjured up the Two Chinas theory in order to find a way to achieve universality in the U.N. by making a place for Mainland China.

Is there any way out of the impasse? Neither Mainland China or Formosa China are likely to concede to the other. John K. Fairbank, director of East Asian Research Center at Harvard, writing in the "New Republic," makes observations worth notice, "The ambiguous status of Taiwan haunts American-Chinese relations, yet no major problem has been so continuously and carefully ignored in public."

Should not a developing and candid foreign policy come to grips with the fact that there is an indigenous population on Taiwan that is neither Chinese nor Japanese? Dr. Fairbank writes, "1) Taiwan is not ancient China but through Chinese migration was settled as recently as were the 13 colonies in America ...2) From 1895 to 1945 Taiwan was a Japanese colony ... 3) When the China Nationalists took power on Taiwan, a great protest by the peoples of Taiwan in 1947 was swiftly and brutally suppressed by the Chiang government."

In the long run, and the road ahead seems foggy at this point, the strongest position would seem to be to conduct a plebiscite on Taiwan, supervised by the United Nations to determine what is the choice of the people of Taiwan. This would provide Taiwan self-determination, an opportunity not given them by either Japanese or Nationalist Chinese, or likely to be given them by Communist China.

Whether Communist China would stand still for such process in return for recognition of credentials by the United Nations cannot be answered, but certainly such a possibility should not be ignored in the difficult but unavoidable appraisal of our foreign policy which must occur sooner or later. It will be sooner if our government knows that citizens are concerned, even though our views will differ as individuals or groups.

In conclusion it is important to observe that some United Nations diplomats believe that even as the League of Nations could not function properly without the United States, so the United Nations cannot function properly without China. China may seem an impossible representative at the U.N. based on present bellicose and doctrinaire attitudes. But perhaps you noted a paragraph of the testimony of George Kennan before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings last week, "I think things will change in China, as they changed in Russia. They always do. A new generation of Chinese leaders will come. They could scarcely be worse in their attitudes toward us than the present ones, and as I look over the history of international affairs, it seems to me that the counsels of patience and restraint have been more effective as a general rule, than the counsels of violence and unleashing unlimited violence." (quoted Stone's Weekly, 2/21/66)

Confucius once wrote (Grant, ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, p. 121), "The superior man is consistent but not changeless, for only the wisest of the wise and the lowest of the low refuse to change." Such ancient wisdom is not irrelevant for modern nations and international affairs.