Light Breeze Of Change About China Blowing Over America

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31145, 23 August 1966, Page 15

Light Breeze Of Change About China Blowing Over America

(From FRANK OLIVER, special N.Z.P.A. correspondent) WASHINGTON, Aug. 21. After many years of policy paralysis on China, both the White House and the State Department in recent months have given indications that policy changes are in order, are essential and are behind-hand. It has become clear that China can, this autumn, get into the United Nations if she wishes to, and some observers here believe it is even possible the United States will not make that last-ditch fight to keep her out. The wind of change about China is still only a faint breeze, but at least it is blowing. Now comes an interesting chapter in the education of America about China and the Far East generally. It comes in the form of a series of articles written by a distinguished “New York Times” correspondent, Harrison Salisbury, who has made a 21,000mile journey round the periphery of the country he cannot visit—China. If the articles are read widely enough in this country they could do a lot in changing the angle of vision along which China has been viewed here ever since the late Senator McCarthy wrecked the Far Eastern division of the State Department. China is usually looked at in relation to the United States or in relation to what it might do to the United States if the United States goes “too far” .in the Vietnam war. The main question, asked over and over again, concerns what is called confrontation between China and the United States. China’s Neighbours The virtue of this series of articles is that an effort is made to see what China means to the countries that surround it and the effects of its policies on Asia as a whole. For years the general view of China by the average American has been: communism is bad, democracy is good, they are the bad guys, we are the good guys, everybody ought to be able to see that The persistence of this viewpoint is certainly in part responsible for the astonishment here over how the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese go on fighting with determination, despite their obviously fearful losses. A little while ago another noted correspondent startled at least some of his readers by casually remarking that it was in Peking that the real battle for Asia is being fought. Now Salisbury finds that on the periphery of China (he visited Russia, Siberia, Mongolia, Japan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Burma, India, Nepal. Pakistan and Afghanistan)’ two concerns predominated. The first was speculation as to what China, the world’s third power, would do when her present nuclear potential is converted into a nuclear striking force; and the second is whether the United States really grasps what is happening in China and Asia and would be willing to cope with it without setting off a nuclear war. Nuclear Race Each nuclear explosion in China sets off shock waves in New Delhi and Tokyo, and starts leaders in both capitals wondering if they should do something about matching China's nuclear power. “The Times” itself, in a leader, comments that unless a proliferation treaty is reached in Geneva both countries are likely to enter the nuclear race. It has been said for some

time by thoughtful writers who are not as widely read as they might be, that the ideal future state in Asia would be for Japan, Indonesia and India to form between them a force to balance the force of China. The “New York Times,” commenting on the Salisbury articles, says what may well determine the outcome of the struggle in Asia is not India’s military power but “whether its political, economic and soocial structure can provide a better life for people than China’s communism” and that diversion of resources into the nuclear race would not be helpful in that regard. India’s Troubles Indeed, other reports from Asia paint a rather bleak picture of India in the near future. Mrs Gandhi, it is reported, is running into severe' political trouble and her Government could be swept out in elections next year. The critics charge that her devaluation of the rupee (reportedly at American instiga-

tlon) is wrecking the economy, that Mrs Gandhi is making the country too dependent on foreign aid, and that the five-year development plan is too big and should be cut back. Valid or absurd, the criticisms mean that the path of progress in India is anything but smooth. In short, an Indian economic strength to give all Indians a better life than have the Chinese across the border isn’t just round the corner. What is beginning to impress itself on some Americans is that China is no longer the amorphous mass she used to be. She has exploded nuclear devices and will undoubtedly achieve nuclear striking power. She is now producing more steel annually than Russia was producing when she was fighting the Nazis. Living conditions are appalling by Western standards, but there are no reports of revolt just under the surface ready to break out. Not even Taipei speaks much about this any more.

What bothers some observers here is what is likely to happen if China’s population continues to increase at the present rate, and more and more food becomes a first essential. The “New York Times” puts the matter this way. “There is danger that an aggressive China one day may engage in the kind of war the world has not seen for many centuries, a war to seize fertile land on which to produce more food.” Other comment in the recent past sees the possibility of an ocean of Chinese humanity simply overflowing into other lands, both for food and to spread its new ideology. The “New York Times” winds up its comment by saying the overwhelming question at issue is whether China’s intractable economic problems of population and food will mean foreign adventure or turn her towards better relations with the world to advance internal development by peaceful means.