Evening star., 1951-05-23
Doubts About Our China Policy

Doubts About Our China Policy
Months before the outbreak of aggression in
Korea Secretary Acheson-in two addresses one
on January % and the other on March IS, 1856
made clear that American policy toward China
was based on several important considerations,
including the following: Cd That the Red regime
at Peiping, far from being its own master. Is
creature of Moscow tratorouSly engaged in help
ing the Soviet Union to fasten an imperialistic
grip on Chinese territory; (2) that many origi-
nal supporters of that regime ought in time to
be diSillusioned and start resisting it, and 90
that the people Of the country, seeing how they
have been miSled and victimiZed, must eventually
turn their wrath against the Russians and the
puppet setup Of Mao Tze-tung.
In his New York speech last Friday, Dean
Rusk, Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs,
gave voice to virtually the same points, though
perhaps with more emphasis-especially in the
sense of having made what seemed to be an
implied appeal to the Chinese people to rebel
against Peiping. To that extent, therefore it
may properly be argued-aS State Department
spokesman has argued-that MIR. Rusk's remarks
cannot accurately be interpreted as rejecting
basic change in American policy toward Red
China However, he did say other things that
gave the distinct impression that the policy had
been markedly modified during the past year,
and nothing the spokesman has said has been
convincing enough to explain away the impress
sion.
Thus, In his Friday speech, Mr.. Rusk declared
that the State Department considers Generals
ximo Chiang's Nationalist government on Formosa,
as compared to puppet Peiping, to be more
authentically" representative Of the views of the
mass Of the Chinese people, particularly their
historic demand for independence from foreign
vn@$ $hA hat o1{y,3 3s <rp{y11
to fasten on them. But In January and March
of 1850 Secretary Acheson described the Chang
regime as one whose popular support on the
mainland Of China had melted away" The
suggestion here was that the regime, despite
continued American recognition of 1t, was in
poor position to speak for China's masses. That
may have been true then, and 1t may still be
true, but the fact remains that 1t Is view that
seems to differ quite bit from Mr.. Rusk's more
recent statement on how the United States now
feels toward the Nationalists and how it is de-
termined to keep on recognizing them and giving
them important aid and assistance"
In the circumstances, even though the diff
ference between Mr.. Rusk's Friday view and Mr.
Acheson's view Of January March, 1850, may be
more apparent than real-a thing Of changed
emphasis rather than changed SubStance-the
average layman cannot be blamed If he has the
SoucWLdG CULIuSeQ impression LLdG our pOllCy
toward China has really undergone an important,
basic revision. Nor can he be blamed If he Won
derS how that reviSion-assuming it to be fact
can be reconcIed with what General Bradley
and others have been saying about the posi-
bility of negotiating Korean peace settlement
with Peiping. If the Mao regime is mere puppet,
If it may be regarded as "a colonial Russian
government" that has no authority of its own,
how does one negotiate with it? Further, If one
can negotiate with it, If one does not have to
negotiate with the Soviets instead, will it be in
negotiating mood II the United States while be-
ing ready to talk with 1t, seems at the same time
to be urging its overthrow by the Chinese people?
These and similar questions have been raised
In some quarters as a Springboard for vehement
attack on the State Department. In many re-
spectS, the attack seems over-excited, especially
because Mr.. Rusk's remarks-whether or not they
reflect significant change in American policy
make good deal Of sense Nevertheless, al
though it is rather exaggerated to describe them
as being irreconcilable with the idea of nego-
tiated settlement in Korea, and although he him.
self has scofed at that Interpretation, they have
created such widespread doubt that further
Qualification is needed Otherwise the present
confusion is likely to be thrice confounded.