Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-27
u. S. FOREIGN Policy


Regarding the present sit
uation in the FormoSa Strait,
I believe that the basic issue
may be stated thus: What
government has the right Of
possession to the off-shore
islands?
Many people say that
islands lying that close to
the mainland Of another
should be governed by that
power on the mainland. Thus
they say that if some other
power had control of Staten
Island we would have the
right to use force to expel
them. If the people on
Staten Island did not want
us we might have a terrific
fight on our hands, but by
reason of geography we would
be in the right. I think
everyone would agree that
geography alone can never
give another a right to pos
session of land. 1t is only one
of the facts which must be
considered. When we look
at the rest of the facts, we
Immediately find that the
Communist government has
never exercised control over
these islands. But also, these
islands have, prior to this
time, always been under the
control of the government on
the mainland. The people
on these islands are, as far as
can be determined, more
than willing to remain under
the control Of the government
on Formosa. / would say that
so far, except for the fact of
geography, the equities lie
with the people on these
islands. They should be al
lowed to choose their own
destiny. Certainly, without
an expression by these people
of being dissatisfied with
their lot, I would not wish
to allow them to become a
part of the Communist world,
That this country would
take a dim view of an
other nation interfering in
our internal disputes certainly
is true. But is the problem
in the Formosa Strait anal
ogous? I don't think so. The
civil war in China had never
been an internal affair.
Those that believe that a
civil war fomented by the
Communists is local in nature,
surely do not understand
what international COM
munism is striving for. 1t
took a combination Of mill
tary help from the Russians
and a naive foreign policy on
the part of the United States
to bring the downfall of Ma
tionalist China. 1t was not
then an internal affair. 1t
is not now.
The United States 7th Fleet
has prevented Chang Kali
shek from making a fool OF
himself on the mainland with
an abortive attempt to re-
gain his lost territory. But
because we have not supported
him in his attempts to regain
the mainland is no reason
why we should not support
him in his legitimate defense.
He has been our staunch ally
since the beginning Of World
War II. He has continually
warned us about the threat
of the Communists. We have,
through our policies after the
war, helped to ruin him.
Should we now forget him?
Paul d. Shafer, Jr.
Hitler was a piker along
side of this Chinese Meow
fella. Meow says, Give me
Ouemoy!" "Givel" says he.
Corpl. Schickelgruber didn't
dare to grab the Saar or the
Sudetenland until he had
first rugged a plebiscite in
each place. Why doesn't
Meow try a plebiscite? Don't
the Quemoyians have any
civil rights? They may not
desire to be Communists. In
addition, why doesn't Meow
offer to buy Quemoy from
the Nationalist? He is
plainly not only a bully but
a cheap skate. AS for admis-
sion to the U. N, Meow's
present unprovoked destruc-
ton on Quemoy should be
sufficient reason to bar him
and his regime from the
U. N. forever. r. L. F.
Don't you think it's time
Red China was admitted to
the U. N? After all it's more
than foolish to ignore the ex-
istence of several hundred
million people. We want to
save face-how about lives?
d. Roman.