U.S. and China; 1

The nearly 700 million people living in mainland China have been taught systematically for more than 15 years to hate the United States and consider her at one in the same time. A potent threat and a paper tiger. The communist government of mainland China has deliberately carried on a campaign to this and at home and abroad. In addition to its massive armies this government now has begun to develop nuclear arms and delivery systems despite difficulties at home where the Great Leap Forward was less than a success and she frequently finds it necessary to import food just to feed her people. The communist government of mainland China is firmly in control of having achieved that control. She has made efforts to expand her authority in Asia and to secure control of underground movement in developing countries in Africa and Latin America. When the Communists seized power in mainland China Shanghai Sheykh withdrew to Formosa with a large number of his

followers. He had long been our ally. We continued to support him and his regime. He proclaimed his to be the government of the Republic of China. We have continued to recognize that government is government while still in power on the mainland had become a founding member of the United Nations and was granted one of the five permanent seats on the Security Council. We have continued to support the government of the Republic of China as the government of China entitled to such membership and that seat the policy of the United States toward the communist government of mainland China has consisted of refusing to recognize or have diplomatic relations with it refusing to trade with it practically prohibiting American citizens journalists scholars or tourists from visiting the country. And I'll bite. With increasing difficulty trying to avert the ceding of that government in the United Nations. In these conditions the relations between the

United States and the communist government of mainland China have become continuously worse. The position of the United States in this situation has also deteriorated in the eyes of other countries as the threat of the Cold War has seemed to them to diminish Communist China has curried favor with neutralise governments on a platform of anti-colonialism and anti imperialism. Many of them have established diplomatic relations with her and will vote for her admission to the United Nations. She has also been recognized by many of our allies and can count on their support. On the next occasion of the consideration of her admission to the United Nations all of these considerations give rise to the question whether the policy of the United States toward communist China is well conceived or whether it should be reassessed. The object of the conference out of which these programs arose and of these programs is not in any sense to provide definitive answers to those questions

nor to propose or support one course of action rather than another. Mainland China exists as a fact and a threat to peace. We will for years to come be pressed by friendly countries and some not so friendly as well as by people here at home to reconsider our reaction to this fact and threat in a variety of spheres. It has been there for our purpose to bring together a group of scholars journalists and businessmen knowledgeable about this problem and with varying ideas as to how it should be treated. To discuss it it is our hope that this may provide the American people with a better understanding of the problem in all its complexities. It is these people who will have to participate in the agonizing reappraisal we will have to make about these relations. It is important that they be well informed because it is they as well who will have to live with the results of the decisions that are taken.

This is the first in a series of five programs in which the question of the relations between the United States and the communist government in mainland China will be treated this first program we'll consider the question of trade with communist China. The moderator for this first program is Mr. Edwin P. Neeland chairman of the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The speakers are James Duncan former chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce of Canada who has traveled in mainland China twice once recently after which he visited the Republic of China on Formosa. Harris venom the editor of the Eastern banker in Philadelphia and authority on international trade who has paid particular attention to the question of trade with communist countries including mainland China and Howard Stevenson the executive secretary of the San Francisco area World Trade Association of the greater San Francisco

Chamber of Commerce. The first speaker is Mr. Duncan. I would like to say just one word about what to my mind is China's greatest asset and China's greatest asset to date and in fact has it for all time. The new quality of that people the Chinese people are tremendous people. They're not only very nice people they're friendly people I've never seen a pleasant gesture. I've never heard an unpleasant remark made about me joy my whole visit on both occasions. Although all of them knew that I was a Canadian and I was a capitalist and I was a landowner which was the worst thing you can call anybody and China and also that our country has not recognized China. Then you all those things at least they were told things they didn't I always told them so also to get the record straight. But I never saw anything unpleasant burghers are friendly and hospitable people but they've got other

qualities which are much more valuable to China than that that people who are of tremendous energy. Absolutely tireless working people of extraordinary dedication great ingenuity people who have got a concentration in their learning which is quite remarkable. They are to my mind a much more intelligent people in the Russian people as a whole. They got many of these qualities which all of us could mine and which many of us would like to see emulated country. Having said that I would just like to say a word about the indoctrination. It's a very sad thing to my mind to see these bright young men and women going to schools and universities and in the gardens you know from four years onward and being and in every case indoctrinated with a completely false understanding of conditions in the west of conditions outside of any communistic country. They're brought up

not to be open minded. Not to show any desire to be of independent thinking on the contrary they are brought up to confirm they're brought up to believe that the Western world is a wicked world that we exploit labor that the government is run. In America Canada England Germany and Western Germany by small click a financial man they pick out rock for they seem to know a lot for a name so they think that rock fall on a fuse colleagues are the people who come down to the White House occasionally and tell President Johnson exactly what he's got to do and he gets up and doesn't and you can't change that point of view. So these people are thoroughly indoctrinated with a false understanding of what's going on in the West and with the great hatred particularly of America a shocking hate of America a belief that we are wicked people. I think they they excuse the Canadians a little bit. They look upon us as sort of satellites of America.

They some of them when they talk to me would say we're sorry for you living so close to the United States must be very difficult for you. If I try to explain that it doesn't. Not that he molested them or they don't believe because I say that can be sort of you know all the trouble we are having with America and we live on the other side of the world and you're living right alongside them must be terrible. So these things are the bad things of course about the educational system. Now I want to come down before my time is running out to talk about trade. Now this will be strange to you perhaps because we in Canada trade with China and yet we don't recognize China. Japan is trading with China to an ever increasing degree. And yet she doesn't recognize China. That goes for quite a few other countries that don't recognize China and therefore it's only natural that the question arise the mind of every one of us here in the United States. Why doesn't this

apply the United States and why can't we do something about it. Well of course the answer is this that the the the reason for the great difference and it's a fundamental difference is Taiwan. Now we Canadians are not in Taiwan. We're not preventing China from moving into Taiwan. Neither the Japanese. America is not an occupation of Taiwan it's all diamonds and is an independent state but nevertheless there are a lot of advisors there. And the Seventh Fleet according to the treaty which which the United States has duly entered into with Iran is defending that country against aggression. And therefore China takes an entirely different view towards America as she does towards countries like Japan or Canada. That explains where these differences lie.

Now I would say to you you know I don't think that I'm wrong that there is no possibility. No possibility whatsoever of developing trade between the United States and China unless and this is the only way it can be done unless I complete the missile. I understand the situation. Unless the United States would not only give up the recognition of Taiwan but abandoned Iran AND LET DIE WHEN be taken over by China by communist China. In that case I believe that China would probably accept recognition by the United States and reciprocate. Now some people may say well then why not do that. Well my friends I wouldn't commence by saying. That in my opinion and I say this with some diffidence as a contagion to an American audience in my opinion the non-recognition of

China by the United States and by those countries like Canada which followed in the lead in 1949 when China had a complete mandate to govern the country after the Chiang Kai shek and of course the straits and gone to retire and I think that non-recognition the 1949 was probably the greatest of the many errors which we all have committed in the western world during the post-war years. This to my mind was the greatest of all and the one which is fault with the with the most difficult consequences which was suffering from today. But having said that. The fact the non-recognition was to my mind at least such a never 949 doesn't mean for one moment that recognition in 1064 is a suitable or reasonable answer and the reason for that is that the conditions have changed so materially throughout Asia in the meantime and particularly in Thailand

and nobody can understand. Nobody can reasonably understand the problem of recognition. If they don't understand what is taking place in Taiwan during the last 10 or 11 years Thailand today supported the Shias of course by the United States. His book has become undoubtedly the most outstanding example of a successful development of an underdeveloped country. But this was only one of the factors which has produced it. Excellent results in Taiwan. There are several reasons I just did you meet them very rapidly. There one was the fact that before the coming of Chiang Kai shek a lot of the senior administrators of educationists factory managers industrialists had left mainland China seeing the handwriting on the wall and had established themselves in Taiwan and therefore Taiwan had a right within that country. A group of

intelligent people who knew how to handle a situation a condition which directly never exists in underdeveloped countries. The other reason is that the government of Chiang Kai shek is run by a very able and very honest people giving the country excellent government. The other reason perhaps the most important of all is that the Taiwanese descendants of the Chinese from the provinces have got all the characteristics of energy and ingenuity and hard work and energy that the Chinese people have themselves. And the conjunction of these four reasons have resulted in the most successful experiment of this kind that has ever existed to my mind in the underdeveloped world of today. I'll give you just one example to illustrate. You all know that land reform is being tried out in practically every country I've seen it in Pakistan I've seen it in all of the work on the

new circumstances. Has it been successful excepting in Taiwan and there's been completely successful and has been accomplished and accomplished fact now that there is no man in which we can have any trade with China unless we recognize China and the only way that recognition on both sides can take place is if we sacrificed highway. That's a safer go back in the treaty which we have signed. Now this to my mind is a solution which none of us can contemplate. If the United States went back on a treaty with I went to date. If she abandoned this successful country this strongly anti-Communist country abandoned them to the come to the communist world on the mainland. Her reputation throughout the world would drop to zero. And what would be the repercussions and all these other countries whose future depends on the agreements and on the understanding of other commitments entered into by the United States. What would happen to

countries like England like Western Germany like France like Italy whose whole post-war policy has been based on the fact that they have every confidence that the United States will live up to the agreements which is entered into. And therefore my friends when I say he was this that discussion us to our trade with China is really not a proper item of discussion at the present time because we have no trade with China. I mean China will have no trade with the United States. The only thing that should could be discussed would be the recognition of one of the other. So therefore I'm sorry to be a controversy on this subject but I do feel that my sizing up of the situation is a correct one. I could go on longer and give you some of the reasons why I don't think it's a hopeless situation but it certainly is and I thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Duncan. You

perhaps may feel that Mr. Duncan is unique in that he's a controversial figure. I don't believe he is I think on the platform tonight to have four controversial figures and I'm going to include myself as one of them because these terrorists venom and I have the same birth state in common we both were born in Michigan. We both know a bit about finance and we both argue a great deal about our points of view and I think with relative belief in the backgrounds that we have. Harris as you may know is the editor and publisher of the Eastern banker. He's a graduate of Lawrence College and Northwestern University in Evanston Illinois a reporter and editor of a very wide experience and note a member of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia a world traveler and a very intelligent and observant world

traveler and he has some viewpoints that I'm sure are also controversial. Harris Vaniman thank you so much the chairman and Mr. Duncan Mr. STEVENSON. Ladies and gentleman. I am tonight's anti-communist and I hope that you will withhold your booze and tell all the speakers I'm finished. I don't want you to think that I have a closed mind. I open it every 10 weeks just to ventilate it. I have never been a guest of a communist government nor AM's a matter of fact I am. Have I ever been permitted to enter the union of the Soviet Republics. I have applied for a visa on numerous occasions and have been constantly refused. I can understand that I would like to say this. This is one mans opinion I think that the greatest

enemies of mankind are these fanaticism the terrifying price that we have paid and will continue to pay for the super race for White supremacy for class war and the other thing that I would raise is the inability of so many of us to face reality to look upon things as they are rather than as we wish they might be. Is Communism not only abhorrent but intolerable. And it seems to me that when the one of the all reading questions of our time is an intolerable. It seems to me that is a failure a Western man in a sense to defend his heritage of values by not. Making a decision on this point. For I think it is true that we all of us decided that. Nazi ism was intolerable. Fascism was intolerable

feudalistic aggression was intolerable. I think that most of us have concluded as reasonable people that there are things with which Western civilization is incompatible. These things are despotism. The police day and the question arises Can communism be anything but a police state. I hate to drag on Lord Acton's timeworn axiom but it is there. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. And Marxism Leninism provides for absolute power. The state is all. Now it seems to me that the invalid inevitable fruit of total socialism is a MUST be Stalinism and one fashion or another. By what mechanism can socialism determine whether it is wrong. We have all the absurdities of the doctrine as well as the practice. The contradiction of the total state and the withering away of the state.

And we have above all a system in which there can be no criticism because the means of communication are owned entirely by the state. And there are many respectable or considered respectable communist nations today where this is true Yugoslavia. As your second former second in command in prison probably for the rest of his days. A very intelligent socialist Mr July's writes beautifully now and Mr. Duncan's remarks we went over so many things so without mentioning them really the nature of Communism what it is which is a fundamental of whether we should have relations with it. There was no mention of Tibet. There was no mention of this international outlaw an aggressor in any fashion of the war that was fought in Korea by the United Nations. No mention of this. No mention of so many other very pertinent

aspects of the history of the world. Since 1949. Now I'm going to take up some aspects of trade because I think these things are vital. It seems to me that there is a corrupting influence that inevitably follows trade with communist nations a corrupting influence I'm going to give you one brief example I'm going to use Mr. Duncan's Canada as example. At the time of the Canadian wheels. Tremendous wheels with mainland China if you prefer I call it Red China it's very pretty but we call it the People's Republic we can call it mainland China if you like. At that time the Canadian trade minister minister of trade and commerce Mr. MICHEL sharp. He said he told the world and Canada. That Canada was receiving the world price on wheat. We later discover the Canadian weed border dropped the contract price six cents below six times a bushel below the prevailing world price and the sale chart of the first 500000 tons of wheat

and it not only dropped the price due to China but it was consistently dropped also to Japan and to the United Kingdom. Customers of this country. And while sharp first maintain that the deal was made of the prevailing price when the facts came out. What did Mr. Sharp do you complain that the United States was revealing trade secrets. He didn't make any point of what I could only regard as a deception now. I'm not going to just pick on the collating and we've had some let in this country too in our deals where we we have been very careful to walk the skate gently over some of the facts of trade. I'm going to raise some other factors of this business. I spend considerable time trying to investigate where this week was going from Canada that was loaded into ships in Vancouver and at Halifax and many of the ships that were a lot of that held up. Never went any nearer to Red China than I am tonight. They took the grain to Cuba that took the grain to Albania and the starving

masses of Cuba did not get the grain in and considerable quantity now. This is the international nature of communism. You see this is the nature of it this is why recently we discovered Italian communists in Venezuela with three hundred thousand unexplained dollars. Well so much for that now we've got the problem of of espionage and subversion that inevitably follows. Trade no later than April 17th of last Brazil decided to expel nine Chinese communists they had received 10 year prison terms for espionage and subversion and two of the nine were journalists and the other seven who were trade representatives from the People's Republic of China. We have another Badger we have a constant shilling that goes on on the on the terms of the deals.

Originally world trade in Graeme's was on standard terms of 25 percent down bounce in 12 months. Canada and others in making their deals. With the People's Republic of China. Extended these terms to 25 percent down in 18 months. Most recently Australia selling grains to China. 10 percent down and 18 months. This is what you get when you get a scramble among capitalists to sell the rope with which they will be hung. I might hide briefcases filled with examples one nabbed or another there's I can document it for the next six months and in great detail. But these are vital factors to me and must be considered. I want you to remember this Mr. Duncan I'm very happy that he did so did make the point that when you are dealing with a police

state which is what the People's Republic of China is as a police think you are not dealing with people's two people you are dealing with government. You're dealing with governments and I am against dealing with governments that are international laws international marauders and international criminals. And I say let those nations who want to deal with them deal with them. But I don't want my country doing so thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you Harris. The next speaker on the program this evening is a 5 Beta Kappa from Columbia University in 1947. He's been a Fulbright lecturer at Catholic University of Peru. But since 1960 he's been connected with the world trade department of the San

Francisco Chamber of Commerce formerly assistant and now executive director of the San Francisco area World Trade Association and one who has sponsored and done a great deal of research into the areas of trade with Red China by other nations and has also sponsored a great deal of discussion about the possibilities of opening some areas of communication and possibly a trade as between the United States and mainland China. It's a pleasure to introduce Howard Stephens. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Nailon. To Duncan Mr. venom. Ladies and gentlemen. Some of my friends have asked me what in the world I'm doing here tonight am I really going to be

talking about trade with communist China. And if so here are some of the objections that they throw out to me and some of them that have been thrown out tonight by my distinguished colleagues here at the table. How in the world can we talk about trading with the enemy. And even if an all out shooting war is avoided that doesn't mean that the communist Chinese or the Russian Communists have given up their off repeated aim to conquer us to the stroy capitalism to bury us. It's ridiculous for us to give them anything at any time. Furthermore how would they ever pay for anything if we were to offer them our goodness. And finally it's certainly absolutely stupid for us to abandon the Chinese we are now dealing with those on Formosa who are proven and determined friends. Are we going to give them up for the risks and uncertainties of the Red Menace. So when

even the mention of trade with China is made we've got some very serious and considered reasons for discarding the whole idea right off the bat and answering with the reason they know no trade no communication. But have you noticed that some people who are making noises about trade with China are really camouflaging their intent by using this word communication. All we want to do is open up communication with mainland China and they tell us well just what in the world are we going to communicate about. What in the world are we going to talk about clothes in a vases. The rain suits our province the beauties of Chinese philosophy. Sooner or later we're going to start talking about all that tea in China. We live in an economic age. We start to communicate. We're going to eventually start talking about trade and to deny that trade as a fixture of communication I believe is

absolute. The simulation advocates of communication I think should face up to that reality. After all they ask us to face up to other realities. For instance the reality of mainland China itself it is there there are 700 million people. They're growing a fast clip now if war is avoided. Are we going to be able to strangle them to wipe out this incompatible system by an economic noose that we are trying to apply to them. And the answer to that I'm afraid is no. We have tried over the past 15 years to put the noose around mainland China. It just hasn't worked. Darned if today some 60 percent of China's extremal trade isn't with non communist countries like Canada Australia the UK and Japan. There apparently is nothing we can do to prevent this Chinese trade with the Western world from continuing increasing. So we have a real dilemma. On the one

hand an antagonistic and ominous foe on the other hand no prospect that that 4 was going to be overthrown by its own people or to be cut off from the rest of the world. All we can rap and we can rave. We can bare our heads in the sand but there still remains the major challenge of our time. Do we find ways of living at peace with half the human race. Or will this generation of Americans know nothing but unless war in the Orient. How could a new policy for China help solve this dilemma. Could trade with China offer any prospect for improvement over the actual situation. I don't think anyone can give a firm and resolute definitive answer to that question. But before discarding the suggestion I think it merits further looking into it. So let me assume the role the devil's advocate and go over some of the immediate arguments. Let's start with this opera boring of

trading with the enemy. This is a serious charge. My only answer to what I believe is I believe to link talks about trade and trade talks was a reasonable political and military stability in Asia. When that time arrives and then the time for trade talks might have a rough as a political scientist acquaintance of mine in Berkeley says you know we're going to have war or we're going to have trade if we avoid war. Trade becomes inevitable. But even if we were to convince some people that we're not suggesting selling scrap iron to taking while American soldiers are being shot at in Vietnam there is the objection that Communism is an implacable foe we could never get along with them they're going to bury us. And it's ridiculous for us to give them anything for we would be weakening ourselves and strengthening them. You've heard this kind of argument many of times I'm sure there are many variations of it

but all of them are based on the assumption that a commercial contact we may have with the Communists is going to hurt us and it's going to benefit them. The trade with communist must necessarily be a one way street increasing the power on their side and siphoning off strength from our side. I don't believe this is true. I believe that trade is one of our greatest weapons. It's a weapon we can use and have used successfully. We are a nation of traitors. We have done very well in our history with our Yankee traitors. I don't believe they are going to be outfoxed Orbach smartened by the Chinese any more than they have been by other nations of the world when it comes to negotiating and bargain and I have great faith in the Yankee traitor. Why this lack of faith in the men who have created the most prosperous and powerful economy in the world. I don't understand.

By the same token I'm not convinced that should we exchange goods we should benefit more than the Chinese and that's simply because I believe in the free enterprise system as being superior to the collective communist system of the Chinese. The whole history of America's growth is testimony to the unique strength of our competitive economic system. Why at this juncture are some Americans so afraid of letting that system continue to strengthen America and the free world. Now if we continue to abstain from attempting to trade with the Chinese there is extremely little evidence that this will do or is doing any great harm to them. The products that we have to offer would offer the Chinese are available to them from other parts of the noncommunist world and of course US but here's the other objection. Well if we were to get some trade going with China how in the world would

they pay for them. What could they exchange with us. I'll admit I cannot give you a definite answer to that question. It's precisely to find the answer to that question what I would like to see from American businessmen and get into China and some Chinese businessmen to get into the United States. I don't believe that you and I will be contaminated. You and I will lose our faith in the American system by a dozen or two dozen or 200 communist spies and denies agents and propagandists in this country. I have greater faith in my own convictions and in yours to discard this supposed peril. The Canadians the Australians and others have found the Chinese has some card currencies the British the Swiss the Italians have followed they can they have found more products to buy in China than they can sell from China. In brief China apparently has the wherewithal to buy and sell in diversified overseas markets

for overseas trade with noncommunist Nations has been increasing rather nicely in the past few years and it counts for over 60 percent in our total right. Yes but even so we do have the problem of Taiwan. Are we going to abandon Taiwan. How can we suggest that we turn our backs on them. Why should we give up our substantial and growing trade with Taiwan. For the uncertainties and risks of trade with the Communists and the mainland. The reply to that I think is quite simple. I'm suggesting no such thing. The Chinese on Formosa and they have suggested it but I have there's no thought on my part to abandon the Formosa to stop trading with them stop investment there. The current tail commercial or long term credits to Taiwan to embargo

their goods. It has been rumored for the Taiwan government has somehow threatened to retaliate against us should we start trade with the mainland. I'm not certain what form this retaliation might take. If they would refuse further ID assistance or would confiscate U.S. investments or would boycott products made in the USA. Certainly the Taiwanese have done no such thing against the Japanese who are their number one trading partner and who are pushing ahead vigorously with their trade with mainland China. Now if the Taiwan government has not interfered or retaliated against the Japanese certainly they are not going to single us out for any such treatment are they. As to the reaction of mainland China should we make an overture remains obviously a question mark whether the

Chinese will react in like spirit should we say to contact and to trade with them is beyond our knowledge. However we will never know until we see our current negative attitude and start accepting the positive. In some nations communication and trade between mainland China and the nations of the free world has been shown to be possible. It is practical and it could be profitable. It is my earnest hope that a political military stability may soon be created in Asia so that we can open up a new front in the campaign for world peace through World Trade. Thank you very much. Thank. God. Ladies and gentlemen you heard three very able and very well-informed proponents of various aspects

of all relationships with mainland China. I think most of you are aware that there has been quite a bit of interest in the prospects of at least trying to establish if not government to government people to people acquaintanceship and there are many old China hands who feel that it is absolutely impossible at the current time for any relationship government government to exist between the United States and mainland China. For many of the reasons that Mr. Duncan has cited. I'm sure that you're aware of the Council on Foreign Relations study which was done rather interesting Lee by the University of Michigan's Research Center on the American public's view of U.S. policy toward China. And this survey

indicated rather clearly that while the American public was pretty well divided equally in their attitudes toward this particular problem that there was a clear indication that the majority at least or if not the majority a major portion of those who had any viewpoints on this particular problem were inclined to follow any presidential leadership that might take place. I think many of you are aware that there have been a great deal of discussions as to the political propriety of any member of our government making any effort whatever to establish communications even though our ambassadors through the Red Chinese ambassador in Poland have been having some off the record discussions.

And I think also that we ought to be very much aware that any movement on our part toward mainland China would pop probably be repulsed officially for the reasons that Mr. Duncan has established and some others. There are however numerous well-informed individuals who feel that trade fair in Red China on a private enterprise basis to illustrate some of the products that are being used in the United States might be possible after some negotiation and I'm talking now probably in the area 15 to 30 six months and they would like to have that opportunity if it could possibly be arranged. I think they are expressing the philosophy that trade acquaintances quite frequently ripen into friendship

if the trade is mutually advantageous. And at least it does establish bases for communication. I'm sure that some of you are aware that early last fall the Harris survey indicated that there was a great deal of interest in the possibility of talks with Red China expressed in that survey. Again almost a 50/50 split among the people who are in whom the survey teams contact. As to those who felt that something should be done and others who felt it should not be done. Senator Bartlett of Alaska has called for a complete reexamination of our policy toward Red China. And I think that more and more there are many people who indicate mainland China exists. We

can't close our eyes and expected to go away. We don't have to agree with its philosophy as Mr. Stevenson has said our Yankee traders never asked whether an individual was black yellow or white. They didn't ask if he was a Catholic Protestant or Jew. They didn't ask what his ideology was whether he was a monarchist a socialist a Democrat a Republican or whatever. They traded. And in the trade some respect for both the idealism the ability the religion and the intelligence of the other partners in trade. A row is whether we like it or not. If I donned a long gray beard I would be positive that Red China will have a seat in the United Nations despite the opposition of the United States within the next three years and probably

within the next two. And this isn't quite as bad perhaps as some of us might think because for the first time we will be participating at least in the same forum and perhaps even some of the violently anti-American Red Chinese government officials. May be somewhat startled by our city of New York. For I am sure we will not throw a police cordon across the harbor or across to the Kennedy Airport to keep them out so that we're faced with some practical aspects of the world in which we live and in which we can no longer adopt a blind unreasoning attitude as to our approaches. I think that's one of the reasons why this conference is being held to try and bring varying viewpoints before you so that you can

appraise these viewpoints that you can discuss some of the problems and that you too can help form a more intelligent public opinion on the part of the citizens of the United States in their approach to in their discussions of these really severe problems that exist in a world not of our making but in which we must continue to live. I think with that brief remark I would like to try to remind you at least for those brief remarks that you heard from Mr. Duncan about the difficulties that China is having. You've heard of their problems in education are higher education related to the lack of jobs. You've heard about their shocking hatred of the United States and their feeling that Canada must indeed have a difficult neighbor to live with. Perhaps if some of the Red

Chinese who come to the UN could cross the Canadian border and see the fortifications that we have against each other it might create some sort of an impression that would offset the impression the Berlin wall creates on the rest of the world. You've heard from Paris venom about his dislike his intense dislike for the police state as we all have for the coercion and the regimentation of individuals for false instruction under the guidance of education but instruction which has very little opportunity to be offset by observation and questioning on the part of the students. And this is bad I don't think any of us would disagree with this. I think we all fear the sabotage and infiltration that is the philosophy of a corrupt government and I'm sure that you would feel it even more realistically

if you were in the areas of Saigon. Or as he mentioned in along the borders of India and other areas of Asia. But you feel it even in South Africa from which I returned about a month ago. When you know that up in Tanzania the Red Chinese are training Africans to do their best to destroy South Africa which is the showcase because of its gross national product and the fact that it has despite its limitations on trying to educate its people because they don't have enough teachers down there to give them education are desperately trying to raise the level of education and economic ability of their peoples. And I personally believe they will in 20 to 25 years startle the world if they're left alone. But the Red Chinese do not

intend to leave them alone. And of course we don't like this. Then we have the other aspect which I think Howard Stevenson has portrayed rather well and this is the fact that for centuries or for at least 300 years we want to go back farther than that the American traitor has tried to bring the American idea the American goods. And sort of a byproduct I think the American philosophy to the remote areas of the world. And like Howard I believe we still have that capability. There are a lot of difficulties there a lot of things that we have weve got to do and it can't be accomplished this year or next year or perhaps even in the next 10 years but perhaps as hard as suggested we ought to be about. This has been the first in a series of five programs which will deal with various aspects of the problems facing the United States in its relations with mainland China.

The speakers were James Duncan former chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce of Canada who has recently visited both mainland China and the Republic of China in Formosa. Harris Vaniman the editor of the Eastern banker at Philadelphia and Howard Stevenson the executive secretary of the San Francisco area World Trade Association of the greater San Francisco Chamber of Commerce the moderator who closed the discussion was Mr. Edwin P. Nealon the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. This first program which was aimed primarily at considering whether we should continue our policy of refusing to trade with mainland China demonstrates how complex the problem is and how it is interwoven with our foreign policy as a whole. It becomes clear that one cannot simply pick out one aspect of our relations and come to any easy conclusion as to whether our policy in its regard is appropriate or what

policy in its regard would be appropriate. It also becomes clear that relations between countries must be a two way street. Neither one can by its own decision to change them bring that change about. Unless the other is also willing. Failure to recognize this truism leads to the dangerous tendency in considering United States policy to implicitly assume that we are omnipotent that what we decide to do will of necessity be done. This leads to simplistic proposals which may dearly appeal to the emotions but which are not of much help to the policy makers grappling with the real and difficult problems. In a discussion of United States policy towards trade with China there are certain questions one would naturally expect to be covered. I would trade with mainland China contribute to an improvement of our balance of payments. At this time when we are working so hard this and one such trade be a significant factor in disposing of our

agricultural surpluses thus helping us with our agriculture problem which shipments of food even on a cash basis have a humanitarian aspect which might improve our image elsewhere in the world. With the opening up of trade be so advantageous to communist China as to outweigh any such benefits. Can we prevent communist China from securing such advantages when even our allies are prepared even anxious to trade with her in food and industrial goods. And of course all these questions were at least alluded to. But the complexity of the problems and the way in which so many facets of them and our foreign policy generally are interwoven. Also it came clearly to light the character of the people of mainland China and how they are treated by and react to their government which brought out differences in the way in which the communist government of mainland China views the United States

as compared with other Western countries was highlighted. The key role of Formosa play is came to the fore. This was all appropriate because whether our relations with communist China over trade are changed depends on China as much as it does on us. If communist China does feel that she wants nothing to do with the United States as long as we continue to recognize and support the government of the Republic of China on Formosa then this is a key to any question of changing our trade relations. But then the plot thickens. The question of are continuing to support the letter government has far wider implications. However wise we may have been in the past we have acquired a distinct commitment to that government. We and they may view it differently but others in the world also view it and judge us by the way in which we act towards it. There may be some room for change in our relations with the government of the Republic of China on Formosa. Conceivably a to China policy might be worked out but if we

ever really neg clearly on our commitment that action will be felt by every other government which feels we have a commitment to it not just in Asia but as far away as beryllium with that wall. The US trade with communist China is no simple question to be considered alone but is one part of the highly complex problem we face in the totality of our relations with that vast country and to our foreign policy as a whole. Our purpose in this program and in the remaining programs is to explore with knowledgeable experts the character of the relations which exist and which might exist between the United States and the communist government of mainland China. Their relations to our other international problems and whether and how our policy should or might be changed we do not advocate any particular course of action. We do believe that the problem is so important that the American people need to be better informed. The sharp difference in viewpoint which has been reflected in this first program of the series will

characterize the whole series. It is our hope that this exposition of widely varying viewpoints held by experts will portray the complexity of the problem and provide the kind of detailed information which will assist the listeners to understand better the options open to the United States in its relations with communist China and the implications of various courses of actions for these relations and for our foreign policy as a whole in this first program we have seen something of the complexity of the problem we face in our relations with communist China. Therefore in the next program we will go back and review in some detail how our relations have in fact developed over the past 20 years. Since we seem to have arrived at a rather happier set of relations with Soviet Russia over the same period we will consider how those relations have developed as compared with those of communist China. Consideration will be given as to whether we might have had a better chance for peace in Asia and the world that we adopted toward communist China a policy similar to the one we adopted toward

Russia. Special consideration will be given to the question whether our relations with communist China are such that we are on a little collision course leading to war in the light of this background differing viewpoints will be presented as to the desirability of continuing our present policy or changing it and the ways in which change might be effected. The speakers on our next program will be Professor John King fair bank director of the East Asian Research Center at Harvard University. Senator George McGovern Democrat of South Dakota and former director of the Food for Peace program and Senator Peter Dominic Republican of Colorado. This is Dean when you moran inviting you to join us at that time.