EXPERTS -
By George Novack
The continuing debate on Asian policy in Washington has temporarily shifted its focus from Vietnam to. China.
Two diametrically different courses of action are being urged upon the decision makers in the White House, State Department and Pentagon‘ ‘to replace their present policy.
A coterie of "hard-line" militarists has been persistently pressing ‘the administration to create pretexts for a preventive nuclear war with China. A much broader segment of opinion is proposing a more moderate and flexible diplomacy to unfreeze relations with Peking. ‘The first group operates behind the scenes; the other has become more vocal in‘ ‘public.
Meanwhile Johnson" s team is sticking | to the same unbending line that U.S. imperialism has’ pursued toward the People's Republic of Chiria since 1949. That is to clamp a diplomatic, military and economic quarantine around China and keep it isolated.
'-For the administration, war against China remains in the same category of "contingency planning" as the bombing of Haiphong and Hanoi.’ On the other hand, it resists any relenting of its all-out hostility toward Peking.
Most of the participants in the discussions on the China problem these past weeks have been highly critical of the official vontainment and isolation policy and have advocated steps toward its relaxation as inducement for China to become as conciliatory as the Kremlin toward U.S. imperialisn.
The lead in this proposed revision of the American attitude toward Peking has been given by Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is the most highly placed dissenter against Johnson's belligerence in Vietnan.
Fulbright asserted that the U.S. has had a "frozen attitude" toward China and "someone has to take the steps to try to break this down to where communications can be established." He advised an accord with Communist China to neutralize all Southeast Asia.
"Unless we are prepared to fight a general war to eliminate the effects of Chinese power in all of Southeast Asia," he said, "we have no alternative but to seek a general accommodation." He recommended that "we indicate to the Chinese that we are prepared to remove American military power not only from Vietnam but from all of Southeast Asia in return for a similar prohibition on her part."
Fulbright compared the presence” of U.S. troops in Vietnam to the Soviet missile build-up in Cuba in 1962. Total withdrawal of American troops over the years, following the conclusion of a
neutralization pact with China, was desirable, he states, because "our presence itself is the principal reason for most of the activity, the insurgency, the energy and the willingness of the enemy to sacrifice."
The senator from Arkansas also recommended that the U.S. drop its opposition to Communist China's entry into the U.N. ; adding that "it may be too much for this administration, just before an election, to take that. drastic step."
Republican Senator Javits of New York, who supports Johnson! s Vietnam actions, likewise condemned the stagnancy of present U.S. policy. He urged direct discussions with Communist China on all issues, including the possibility of U.N. membership for Peking, to arrive at an understanding which could bring peace to Asia. :
-In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a number of America's leading scholars who support the present intervention in Vietnam, nevertheless challenged many of the premises long used by Washington to justify its unremitting animosity toward Peking. They denied that. the Chinese Communist leaders are plotting revolution around the world or getting ready to invade and conquer neighboring lands. They pictured Mao's regime as preoccupied » ‘with enormous economic and social problems at home and pursuing an inept foreign policy that had antagonized not only the United States but the Soviet Union and.other countries. Professor. A. Doak Barnett of Columbia proposed to modify the present policy into one of containment without isolation.
On the other side, Dr. Milorad Drachkovitch of the Hoover Institute at Stanford: University defended the policy of containment and isolation on the: ground that. it had brought. "tangible results,. as witness the latest events in Ghana: and. Indonesia. a
Weighty support was swung behind Fulbright ': s plea for revision in a policy statement signed by 198 academic experts on China belonging to’ the Association of Asian Scholars. They said that even government officials recognize that U.S. policy with mespeet to China is out of date and proposed six measures to change it:
(1) Abandonment of opposition to Communist China's admission to the U.N.
(2) Negotiations for the establishment of full diplomatic relations with Peking.
(3) Opening of negotiations on such matters as arms. control.
(4). Cultural, educational and social exchanges between the two countries.
(5) An end to the total trade embargo now imposed on Communist China.
(6) Discarding the fiction. that Chiang's puppet - regime on
Taiwan represents mainland China.
Most of the scholarly witnesses agreed with the administration estimate ‘that Peking would not intervene inthe ‘Vietnam war unless the viorth Vietnamese. regime was in danger of being: smashed. or-UiS. troops moved close to China's border. Secretary iof Defense:.McNamara, who has so consistently miscalculated the development of the conflict in Vietnam, observed last week. ‘that “the risk of unlimited war is not very great." . . tylvatie Q
However, General Ridgeway, retired Army chief of staff and commander of the U.S. forces. during the Korean:war, warned in an article “In: the April 5 Look magazine that "With:no clear-cut limit. upon our immediate military objective, we commit ourselves. to an upward-spiraling course that may approach annihilation." He wrote that Communist China might attack south Vietnam and might also reopen the Korea front af provoked.
New York Times correspondent Tom Wicker reported from Washington March 20 that "no oné expects the administration to retreat this year or anytime from its stand against admitting Communist China to the United Nations" or giving diplomatic recognition to Peking. But it is not adverse to the hearings because it believes China's admission to the U.N. is inevitable and they might serve to soften up pepe opinion for what will be a major American diplomatic defeat. a .
The administration' s reluctance to-moderate its intransigence was underscored by its sudden change of mind on the projected sale | of a $150,000,000 steel mill to the People's Republic of China by a European consortium organized by West German promoters. After giving the -nod to the.Bonn government, Secretary of State Rusk spoke out against the deal on March 20. “According | to the New York Times, he is one of the administration officials "who is most pessimistic about the chance of eventually coming to an understanding with Peking. ' The president has promised to keep Rusk |as head of his. cabinet.
Even though the Johnson administration refuses to alter its hostility..toward Peking, it is a mark of progress that the seventeenyear taboo in top circles against questioning the wisdom of trying to completely isolate China.is being broken. It is another sign of changing times. that the academic. community is ‘bringing its influence to bear in Washington. ; ..
“the direct involvement of intellectuals of very. different sorts. in questions of foreign affairs is an offshoot of the teach- — ins.and antiwar demonstrations sparked. by the campus rebels.’ The’ "“eggheads," who. were so scorned under’ Truman and, Eisenhowever, are © now not. only taking a part in forming: public opinion but demanding , a voice in reshaping government policy. | in the most sensitive area of foreign relations. .
PRIZE-WINNING JOKE IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, known in top circles of the Democratic party as a real clown, told the Gridiron Club a ribtickler about his friends, the Johnsons. - -
When ‘it became necessary to trim down the list of guests to be invited to daughter Luci's wedding, a suggestion was made that they could eliminate the 27,000,000 who voted for Goldwater.
Johnson stopped that nonsense. "They may vote for me in 1968. And why shouldn't they vote for me? After all, what Goldwater prom— . ised -- I delivered. n a
TORIES HUNT FOR ISSUES ON EVE OF BRITISH ELECTION
«BY John Walters |
7 London
A number of issues have. arisen in the course of the election campaign which have been seized on by the Tories in an attempt to stampede sections of the middle class who in recent polls and byelections have been swinging to Labour. However, there seems little evidence that they are having much success. One of the features of the election SO far has been its lack of: enthusiasm.
A national poll publishea in the March 13 Observer gave vot-ing intentions as, Labour 49:6 per cent, Tories 44.9-per cent, with the Liberals. coming way behind with 8.1 per cent. This shows some. / reduction in the Labour lead since the start of the election, but this was to be expected as the election campaign proceeded. Even on this showing Labour could win a 75-seat majority in the new Parliament if the present lead is maintained on polling day.
One of the-issues that. the Tories, and most of the press, have tried to-use as a scare campaign has been the question of "workers courts." The press seized eagerly on a report that eight workers had been fined by their work mates for working during an unofficial strike at the British Motor Corporation works at Cowley in Oxford. There have. been large headlines about "Kangaroo Courts," "infringement of individual liberties," demands for police investigations into alleged intimidation. There was much talk about a noose hanging up at the meeting where this "fine" was alleged to havé been imposed. As usual in such cases the press have been able to find someone who ™ is ready to. "tell all." This character, a shop steward, has been ~ sounding off to the press about a secret body known as the "M6 Cabinet" which, it is alleged, was the body behind all the disputes, etc., at the plant.
It is noteworthy that the Labour leaders joined in the baying
of ‘the “capitalist press and Tories in denouncing all: of these shings’ before any attempt had been made to verify the truth of the muddy ~ statements. Ray Gunter the Minister of Labour jumped in with both: feet in his usual style in denouncing the workers concerned. But what were the facts?
The Transport and General Workers Union set up an enquiry into the incidents and reported their findings on March 17. The statement said, "There had been no workers court, no fines, no intimidation. Certain newspapers had taken statements out of context and there had been frequent cases of gross distortion." Further on it said, "We are astonished that prominent politicians have made strong statements - ‘from public platforms .condemning. thousands of. decent British working men and women. without first. -ascertaining. the facts. While some actions at B.M.C. [British Motor Corporation] Service © have been unconstitutional and cannot be condoned by the union we are satisfied that the whole affair has been so grotesquely distorted by. sections of the press that in order to protect the good name of British journalism the Press Council should institute an enquiry." Harry Urwin, the union spokesman said, "There was a piece of rope but a man would have had to have been two foot tall to get under it." Also the so-called M6 Cabinet..was in fact a group of shop stewards who met during.tea breaks to discuss shop affairs, there being nothing secret or furtive about the whole thing at all. As for the ‘fines ' these had been: voluntary donations to charity...
This whole thing has been used as an.election stunt in the ~ best yellow press tradition of Tory electioneering. The question arises why they were able to do.this. Why was it. that for over a week both the press and radio, etc., made the ."workers courts" issue headline news, trying to work up an antiunion. fever among the middleclass electorate? Much of the responsibility rests with. the present right-wing Labour leadership. .One of their first acts when arriving in office was the setting up of a Royal Commission on Trade Unions, and since then there has been a growing volume of loose talk in the press about the need to "reform" the trade unions, and the need for radical or tough measures. Of course when the capitalist press talk about radical reform of the trade unions they mean hog-tying them, or emasculating them as instruments for defending the workers interests. Because of the utterances of various Labour leaders, especially of Gunter, there has been created a climate where the press and the Tories have been able to exploit the situation.
The logic of the situation is that every time the Labour government has. taken steps to: the right they have opened the way for the Tories to move further to the right. It is noticeable. that in the last election the question of. the unions was only marginal but in this one they have been made a central issue, with the Tories on the offensive. : ,
At the time of ‘writing, there have been other issues pushea. to the front,-such as the question of Britain's. entry into. the European Common Market, and also the question of NATO. On NATO Labour has |. -stood on the side of the U.S. in its dispute with France, while the Tories have been ambiguous. The Common Market issue has only just
been-raised. so that at the. moment. the parties are still only. sparring for openings. What is evident, however, is that the Tories are fever-. ishly picking up issues one after another in an attempt. to retrieve a their poor. ‘showing so far. .
March 19, 1966
- GERMANS FAIL TO