Evening star., 1953-12-13
Trodinq With Red China

Richmond, Virginia, returned to the attack in
the matter of Western trade with Red China In
effect, he urged the American people to support
only those congressional candidates who advo-
cate withdrawal of all financial aid to friendly
countries which trade with Communist China
This is the issue on which Senator Mccarthy
has come to an open break with the President
and Secretary Dulles. It is, furthermore, an
issue highly charged with emotional content,
and on which he may be able to attract a sub
stantial measure of popular support
It is not an issue, however, which Is as
simple and as clear-cut as Senator Mccarthy
would have us believe.
In his speech of November a. he made
e-wheeling attack on our allies, mentioning
Britain by name, because they continued to
trade with Red China while receiving financial
aid from us, and even while the fighting was
under way in Korea. He said that these allies
were "defrauding" us, and he continued:
What can we do about it? We can deal
a death-blow to the war-making power of
Communist China. We can without firing a
single shot force them to open their filthy
Communist dungeons and release every Amer
lean. We blockade the coast of China
without using single ship. single sailor or
single gun.
We can do this by merely saying to our
allies and alleged allieS-n you continue to
ship to Red China while they are inprisoning
and torturing American men, you will get not
one cent of American money
1t need not be doubted that this kind of
taIK, however Irresponsible has potent appeal
On its glib surface it seems to make sense But
let us look for moment beneath the surface
Let us take the case of Britain mentioned
oy senator Mccarthy, and let us assume that
1t would be in our own interests to attempt to
force Britain to cease all trade with China
ffrrr @fE A,.a@
British.
The first question is whether the ATTEMPT
would be successful. Senator Mccarthy does
not admit the possibility, but there certainly is
serious doubt that Britain would submit to
American dictation and coercion on this score.
NO exact figure for military aid is available but
the probability Is that our total contribution"
10 the United Kingdom in this fiscal year is less
than $4O0 million. Of this, something like 5000
million is in the form of military aid If there
is to be war, would our own interests be served
by cutting off military aid to Britain our strong
est ally?
There is, however, further question. Can
government like that of the United Kingdom
be coerced by threat to cut off some $4OO mill
lion OF aid? Most probably not But If the
contrary should prove to be true if we could
coerce Britain, how useful in event of war would
such browbeaten, Inundated and resentful
ally be-?
There Is still a more important question.
Let US assume that the attempt to coerce Brit
ain should be made. Let us also assume that
despite Senator McCarthys assurances to the
contrary, that the attempt should fail What
then?
If we cut of financial aid to Britain, what
ever the precise total of that aid may be- where
would the British turn? They would not sit
back and let their own economy collapse. How
would they make up the deficit? Here are
some suggestions:
They would cut back on their own large
military effort, which means that, if war should
come, we would have weaker ally, or perhaps
no aLy-not even an alleged" ally. We make
it difficult for them to Offset the deficit by
trading with us, so, in all probability they
would be driven to more, rather than less, trade
with the Communist world And that new trade
might well encompass military items, which
they are not now selling, as well as nom
strategic goods.
Let us for a moment try to be sensible about
this business. Neither Britain nor any other
ally is going to permit us to impose upon them
a sentence of economic ruin. If we try to do
this, we must recognize that we shall be driving
them toward and not away from, the Com
munists And If we do so drive them, the BEN
eLClaIy Will Oe HOI U.s. OuG Cte OOIIlIIluIlSC gov
ernment of Communist China.
Let us also try to remember one more thing.
1t is easy for Senator Mccarthy to get up and
make speech which pulls out all the stops on
an emotional issue. But the President of the
United States, even though some commentators
may accuse him of paving the way for the
defeat of the Republican Party, has to take a
longer view.
President Eisenhower has to think of what
is really in the best interests of the United
States. He, having the ultimate responsibility,
cannot casually take the risks-even if he
wanted to take them-which Senator Mccarthy
advocates And if he is not willing to join with
Senator Mccarthy in taking step which might
ALLEVIATE our allies, his reasons for refusing to
do so are entitled to the most serious considera-
ton For the benefit of those who think of
this in terms of partisan advantage, it may be
suggested that-just possibly-General Eisen-
hover. If it should come down to this, would
rather lose an election than pursue a course
which, economically speaking, might drive our
strongest ally into our enemy's camp.