TRADE WITH WEST CALL FOR FOREIGN IMPORTS CONCERNS CHINESE LEADERS

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33539, 21 May 1974, Page 12

TRADE WITH WEST CALL FOR FOREIGN IMPORTS CONCERNS CHINESE LEADERS

IBy VICTOR ZORZA)

A film now playing to crowded audiences in China presents in dramatic form one of the major issues in the struggle between the Peking leaders: should China go with the United States, or against it . The struggle in the movie is between the baddies who want to rely on foreign supplies in building up China’s new navy, and the good ( onimunists who distrust the foreigner. The goodies are proved right when the wily foreigner refuses to deliver the material he had promised tor the naval programme. But the Chinese press articles which use the film as a jumping off ground for political homilies make it clear that the issues are much broader than that.

A new struggle is “just beginning” in China, says the Peking press. The issue is whether China should “maintain its own independence.” or whether it should submit to “dictation” by foreigners, thus assuming a posture of “servility” and “dependence.” The foreigners in question are Americans, as is clear from an article in Peking’s main paper, the “People’s Daily.” The article poses two alternative and mutually exclusive ways in which China could modernise itself, and thus join the superpowers, which is what the Peking leadership struggle is really about. One way to develop China’s industry, it says, is to rely on China’s own efforts and to “stand on our own feet.” The other way is by relying on foreign aid. thus “taking the road of treason and capitulationism as was done by Chiang Kai-shek” when he sought external help. The United States is not identified by name, but the inference is obvious. United States Government analysts agree that there are some differences in Peking about imports from the West, but they believe that this is by and large an economic rather than a political debate. They maintain that China’s foreign policy and especially its relationship with the United States is not a major issue in the

Peking leadership struggle now in progress in China.

The Peking press comments which link the present debate over foreign imports to Chiang Kai-shek’s “treasonable” .eliance on the United States would appear to dispute that interpretation. But their views receive support from intelligence information which shows that there has been a great outpouring of requests from factory managers all oyer China for imports of foreign equipment. These requests, stimulated by Peking’s official “opening to the West,” and by reports of Western trade opportunities in the Chinese press, are said to have alarmed the Chinese leadership. They know that China is not likely to have in the foreseeable future anything remotely approaching the amount of foreign currency needed to satisfy all such requests. The Peking propaganda campaign is therefore designed, Washington officials argue, to damp down the demand for imports rather than to stimulate hostility to the United States.

But those who are being denounced for favouring foreign imports have been “hitting back,” according to the Chinese press, and their arguments are plainly political. They maintain that the anti-imports lobby wants to keep China “isolated from the rest of the world,” which

means, in this context, from the United States. They are therefore accused, in turn, of trying to bring about a politically "murky” situation, of promoting a wrong policy line.

The theme of treason is brought up again, not just with reference to Chiang, but to “revisionists.” Chinese Communist leaders accused of opposing Chairman Mao are said to have been “obsessed” with the need for subservience to foreigners. This is an attack, in the thinly disguised code now being used in the Peking power struggle, against members of the present Chinese leadership.

Which members? One article which accuses a notable Chinese intellectual of the pre-Communist era, Hu Shih, of plotting “to sell China to United States imperialists” appears to be aimed against Premier Chou En-lai. It draws a number of implied parallels between the ' careers of the two men. Hu’s I early years in Shanghai and [his foreign travels are the for his later I acceptance of Western values. He wanted United States scholarships for Chinese students, which Chou En-lai is believed to have urged recently, and he ended up by “promoting” United States interest inside the Chinese Government. Chou En-lai’s closest associate in the Politburo. Teng Hsiao-ping, a reformed "revisionist” lately restored to a position of great power, is evidently also under attack. Among the “revisionists” accused of disputing Mao’s view that China "can survive without begging from the imperialists" is one who takes pride “in owning foreign-made walking sticks.” Teng is the only member of the Politburo who uses a stick.

One clue to what the argument is about is provided by an article which recalls a "peace offensive” once launched by “U.S.Chiang” reactionaries. But the talk of peace, says the “People’s Daily," was designed by the “U.S.Chiang” enemy to regroup their forces in order to attack the Chinese Communists and thus “stage a comeback.”

There are not many such articles, and in this sense they do not loom as the “major” issue in the Peking debate. But the message they convey is far more important than the thousands of Chinese press articles which attack Confucius for what he said more than 2000 years ago.

The message is this. Some Peking leaders believe that China must ally itself far more closely with the United States, and rely on it for economic as well as political support in the struggle with Russia. Others believe that this is the way to capitalist perdition, that China must keep out of American clutches, and that to do this Peking must moderate its dispute with Russia. (Copyright 1974 Victor Zorza.)