* 1 '■:«'',
P£46£ /iV Ot/fl TIME?
(Continued Irian Page 32)
Ircal if the Presidenl continues lo believe "that there is no alternative to
It would in fact seem thai the onh
difference between U.S. and British pol-
,cy is theii London wants us to compel
Chiang Kai-shek to abandon the Quc-
'novs and Matsu withoul anv i/uiil pro
'/""■ whereas Washington wants at least
a teieii cease-fire and an end to Peiping's
daily proclamation of its intention to
GUARANTEED NO INTERFERENCE
Since the I Inited States has let it be
understood that the Communists need
nol fear war with us so long as they
only nibble- at the offshore islands; and
since we have forbidden the Nationalist
air force and navy to bomb the airfields
fte Communists are constructing eit
foochow. e,r to interfere with the ship-
Ping bringing war supplies to Foochow
■"id Aniov. sir have in effect guaranteed
'" tin Communists that there will be no
"it'-rfercncc with their preparations tor
!'u' all-oul assault on the islands which
Ur should regard as preparatory to an
a|lac|< on Formosa and which would
""ein war with us. ll is almost as if
jje bad told the' enemy that we won't
''"lit him until lie is good anil ready
a"d will have a fair chance lo will.
"n his return from Asia, on March 6.
™«. Dulles spoke as if he had become
convinced thai firm opposition to any
'"'dilional Communisl expansion is es-
8ential i<> leliiik "the crumbling away"
?' allied authority in Asia. But, as the
}<■"' York Times also reported on
Nothing in Mr. Dulles' remarks to,lav
fMarrh 61 ,,,- during liis tour has removed tin- uncertaint] aboul whal tbe
' -S. will, oi will not, .1.. aboul die off-
-Nobody, except God ami maybe I'resi-
,'hl F.isenhower. although even ihis is
'""I'tful. knows whether we shall, or
''" noI. fight lo defend lhe Quemoy
i''"1 Matsu offshore islands. The Amcr-
'"' public certainly docs not know and
('".' only choose between the venv ing
"'nions ..I commentators, columnists
I "' editorial writers. Congress does not
,,""»■ although Knowland
?•' We shall and Men's,- lhal
i1."1,' It would seem lhal neither \li
nn thai neither
nor Vilmii'.il Radford knows, al
f •■*.. the latter definitely, and the
'"'""'i- .linn.st certainly, wants us to
°P die further triumphant advance of
".'""iiinism in Asia by a firm stand.
.The Chines,. Nationalists don't know.
I, """-'li the) undersl I originally that
l"' administration hail pledged iise-lf to
'' I' diem defend these strategically and
"'""'.ilK mi tenii i-lamls. Their for
eign minister. George K. C. A eh. having
staled on February 10 thai the U.S. had
promised lo defend the Quemoys and
Matsu, retreated from his premise next
day. After leaving the Slate Department,
on the day he returned to Formosa, he
weis reported by the New York Times as
sav imi: lhal '"he had not intended to
leave' the impression that the l.S. had
given the Nationalist Chinese a specific
pledge." Mr. A eh added that he would
not "eliminate lhat possibility" bul said
lhal '"il is for the United Stales to
—Wide World Photo
President Eisenhower and Secretory of
Tbe Communists don'l know, and
therein lies the greatest danger of war.
leir. as we- should know from past experience, all wars are started by one
miscalculation. History shows that both
the first and second world wars might
never have occurred if the intentions of
the Western powers had been realized.
But, as Sygnman Rhee has remarked.
"There is an old saying that those who
will not learn from history will be required Ii. repeal il."
Ironically, considering lhe Republican campaign promises of 1952, it weis
left lo .fames I'. Richards, the South
Carolina Democrat who now heads the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, to
remark, on March 6. that lhe United
States is risking em armed clash over
the Matsu and Oucmov islands l.v withholding il- intentions regarding them.
As he wisely slated, lhe consequence is
likely lo he thai the Communists "will
stent probing out our intentions. .. ami
in doing so will open an armed clash."
ll was al-o Mr. Richards who. on March
6, stated that when the joint resolution
.ni Formosa was voted ihe administration had misled Congress into believing
that il wa- guaranteeing the defense of
the offshore islands, ll was also a Democrat. Senator George of Georgia, who
pointed out the implications of Dulles'
report, when he slated on March I! thai:
The Communists portray us ns sseeek.
and unless the free people ret ei clear
sense ..I ..ur strength ond of mu willing.
ness to use it. tlee-y nieev conclude that
communism is ^..inei to win and then thev
hee.l better join up.
FORUM NEWS, April, 1955
On lhe same day lhal Dulles was reporting lo lhe Senate Foreign Affairs
Committee that the whole of Southeast
\sia will be in danger unless the 1 .S.A.
"makes its influence fell in a positive
way," Air. Eden was telling the House
of Commons lhal a Formosan cease-fire
and withdrawal of the Nationalist Chinese' from the offshore islands could
pave the way for consideration of Red
China's entry into the United Nations
"at an appropriate stage."
When questioned concerning Eden's
statement, so completely at variance
with bis own. Mr. Dulles is reported
to have said that he "knew nothing
about it." Rut on February 11 Drew
Aliddleton had reported to the New
York Times thai Herbert Morrison had
said that day: "The United Slates
intends to retire from situations imperiling peace, such as insistence on occupation of islands near the Chinese mainland."
As Air. Aliddleton also wrote, no
"factual information" on this bad been
made public, hut in London it seemed
as if some "reassuring information"
about lhe islands "bad passed from
Washington to London." This no doubt
accounts for Air. Eden's affirmative reply in the House of Commons on March
H lo a question as to whether British
"friendship, cooperation and consultation with lhe United Slates remained as
strong as ever." This was on the same
day lhal lhe British Foreign Secretary
praised lhe 1 nited Stales for having
"effectively restrained the Chinese Nationalists from initiating attacks against
the Chinese mainland" and for having
"persuaded" Chiang Kai-shek lo evacuate the Tachens.
BRITAIN'S PRIVATE DEAL
Il would therefore seem probable thai
the Alsop brothers were eorreel when
they reported lhat Dulles had made il
elear lo Eden at Bangkok lhat if Britain
could arrange a "private deal" along
these' lines, we could "persuade" the
Nationalists lo withdraw from lhe offshore islands. Stewart Alsop represented
Eden as offering lhe carrot to the Communisl donkev while' Dulles threatens it
with a slick. Those who want us to stand
by our Chinese allies mighl view them
instead as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
"Pull devil, pull baker"—Britain's intentions are all loo plain while ours are
veiled in tlle obscurity of double talk
and double ihink. Moreover, British
views are reinforced by the powerful
voices of out own appeasei's and anli-
anti-Communists eis voiced by the New
) ork Times .ind Washington Post and
a host of American so-called liberal
commentators and columnists who have'
no conception of Communist aims and
methods, or of the clear and present
danger which menaces the United