ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

2. U.S. AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA1

[blocks in formation]

1 Data from USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (U.S. Bureau of the Census statistics). 2 Values are FAS (freight alongside).

3 Data are for January-November 1974 and are assumed to be within US$1,000,000 to US$2,000,000 of total for calendar year 1974 because it is doubted that little if any wheat or cotton were shipped during December 1974. 4 Running bales of 500 lb.

Source: U.S. Consulate General, Hong Kong.

3. U.S. AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, CALENDAR YEAR 1974-ESTIMATES OF POSTPONED OR CANCELED SHIPMENTS 1

[blocks in formation]

1 Includes estimates of that portion of purchases which were to be shipped in calendar year 1974 out of commodities originally destined for shipment during marketing years 1973-74 and 1974-75, but which will not be delivered during calendar year 1974 because of cancellation or postponement.

2 Estimated values derived from fob prices at estimated dates or original purchase.

3 Delivery postponed until calendar year 1975.

4 Purchase canceled. An additional 300,000 mt of corn for delivery in calendar year 1975 was also canceled. (Estimated value: U.S. $32,000,000)

5 Purchases canceled. A total of 55,000 mt not shipped in marketing year 1973-74 and 600,000 mt to be shipped in marketing year 1974-75 were canceled. Two estimates are made: (1) 4 of the 600,000 mt to be shipped in calendar year 1974 (plus 55,000 mt); and (2) 1/4 of the 600,000 mt to be shipped in calendar year 1974 (plus 55,000 mt). The balance of (1) 450,000 mt or of (2) 300,000 mt which was originally scheduled for delivery in calendar year 1975 was also canceled; an additional "loss" of either U.S.$94,500,000 or US$63,000,000.

Source: U.S. Consulate General, Hong Kong.

APPENDIX E

EXCHANGES JOINTLY FACILITATED BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES 1 AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

To People's Republic of China

1972:

To United States

Computer delegation.

National Committee on US-China Re- Medical group.

Table tennis team.

lations delegation.

1973:

Scientists.

Shenyang acrobats.

National Committee on US-China Re- Journalists. lations delegation.

Gymnasts.

Committee on Scholarly Communica- Linguists. tion with the PRC delegation.

Hydrotechnicians.

EXCHANGES JOINTLY FACILITATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA-Continued

[blocks in formation]

APPENDIX G

SPEECH BY SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD (D., MONTANA) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MISSOULA, MONT., FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1968

CHINA RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Viet Nam is heavy on the heart of the nation. The Vietnamese war is a tragedy. It is a tragedy in the American lives which it claims. It is a tragedy in the death and devastation which, in the name of salvation, it has spread throughout Viet Nam.

My views on United States policy respecting Viet Nam are no secret. I have stated them, restated them, and elaborated them many times. I have cautioned against an ever-deepening military involvement in that conflict. I am opposed to any increase in it today. I believe that the way out of a barbarous situation is not to go further into it.

The first step towards peace, in my judgment, is to concentrate and consolidate the U.S. military effort and to escalate the peace-effort, looking towards the negotiation of an honorable end of the conflict.

That, in brief, is the way I feel about Viet Nam. That is the way I have felt about it for a long time. The President knows it. The Senate knows it. Montana knows it.

What I have to say to you, today, touches only indirectly on Viet Nam. Mv remarks are intended to go beyond Viet Nam to what may well be the roots of the war. In this first lecture of the series on international affairs, I wish to address your attention to what is the great void in the foreign relations of this nation to the question of China.

As a nation, we have lived through a generation in only hearsay association with a third of the entire human race. At the inception of this void, we were engaged in a costly and indecisive conflict in Korea-on China's northeast frontier. Two decades later, we are engaged once again in a costly and indecisive conflict, this time on China's southeast frontier. These two great military involvements on the Chinese periphery are not unrelated to the absence of relevant contact between China and the United States.

Sooner or later a tenuous truce may be achieved in Viet Nam even as a truce was achieved in Korea. In my judgment, however, there will be no durable peace in Korea, Viet Nam, or anywhere else in Asia unless there is a candid confrontation with the problems of the Sino-U.S. relationship.

China needs peace if the potentials of its culture are to be realized. This nation needs peace for the same reason. In this day and age, the world needs peace for civilized survival. You young people have the greatest stake in peace. For that reason, I ask you to look beyond Viet Nam, behind Korea, to what may well be the core of the failure of peace in Asia---to the U.S.-Chinese estrangement of two decades.

In 1784, Robert Morris, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, sent the first American clipper ship to trade with China. The year that President George Washington took the oath of office, 1789, fourteen American ships were riding at anchor in the Pearl River off Canton in South China.

There are no American ships in Chinese ports today. There have not been for almost twenty years. In twenty years, hardly an American doctor, scientist, businessman, journalist, student, or even a tourist has set foot in China.

Across the Pacific Ocean, we and the Chinese glare at one another, uncomprehendingly, apprehensively, and suspiciously. In the United States, there is fear of the sudden march of Chinese armies into Southeast Asia. In China, there is fear of a tighter American encirclement and American nuclear attack.

We see millions of Chinese soldiers poised on China's frontiers. We see leaders who threaten in a most violent wav. We see an internal Chinese turmoil to confirm our fears of irrationality and recklessness. Finally, we see a growing nuclear power, with the looming spectre of a full-fledged Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile force.

On the other hand, the Chinese see themselves surrounded by massive American military power. They see U.S. naval, ground, and air bases scattered through Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, and Thailand. They see over half a million American troops in neighboring Viet Nam and hundreds of thousands more nearby. They see tremendous nuclear capability with missiles

zeroed in on Chinese cities. They see the United States as "occupying" the Chinese island of Taiwan and supporting a Chinese government whose declared aim is the recapture of the mainland. And they see, too, what they decribe as a growing collusion between the United States and the Soviet Union, a country which they believe infringes China's borders, threatens to corrupt the Chinese revolution and exercises an unwelcome influence throughout Asia.

We and the Chinese have not always looked at one another with such baleful mistrust. The American images of China have fluctuated and shifted in an almost cyclical way. There has been the image of the China of wisdom, intelligence, industry, piety, stoicism, and strength. This is the China of Marco Polo, Pearl Buck, Charlie Chan, and heroic resistance to the Japanese during World War II. On the other hand, there has been the image of the China of cruelty, barbarism, violence, and faceless hordes. This is the China of drum-head trials, summary executions. Fu Manchu, and the Boxer Rebellion-the China that is summed up in the phrase "yellow peril."

Throughout our history, these two images have alternated, with first one predominant and then the other. In the eighteenth century, we looked up to China as an ancient civilization-superior in many aspects of technology, culture, and social order and surrounded by an air of splendid mystery. Respect turned to contempt, however, with China's quick defeat by the British in the Opium War of 1840. There followed acts of humiliation of China such as participation in extra-territorial treaty rights and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

Attitudes shifted again in the early twentieth century to one of benevolence largely in consequence of the influence of missionaries. There were more missionaries in China from the United States than from any other country. More American missionaries served in China than anywhere else in the world. The Chinese became, for this nation, a guided, guarded, and adored people.

Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion in 1937 produced another shift from benevolence to admiration. At the end of the Second World War, admiration was displaced by disappointment and frustration, as the wartime truce between Nationalist and Communist forces collapsed in cataclysmic internal strife. This nation became profoundly disenchanted with China, a disenchantment which was replaced abruptly in 1949 by hostility.

The hostility was largely a reaction, of course, to the coming to power of a Communist regime on the Chinese mainland. We did not interpret this event as a consequence of the massive difficulties and the vast inner weaknesses of a wartorn China. Rather, we saw it almost as an affront to this nation. We saw it as a treacherous extension of the Soviet steam-roller policies which had reduced Eastern and Central Europe to subservience at the end of World War II.

Then, in 1948, came a Communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet attempt to blockade Berlin. The triumph of a Communist government in China followed immediately after these events in Europe. The nation was shaken to its fingertips.

Still, the press of events continued relentlessly. In June 1950, the North Koreans launched a sudden attack on South Korea. The Chinese forces intervened in the war in November of that year. The United States was brought into a major military confrontation in which, for the first time, the Chinese were enemies and not allies.

After these events, the assumptions of American policy towards China were revised. An effort was made to meet both the concern and outrage respecting China which existed in this nation and the revolutionary militancy of the new Chinese regime in Asia. Policy was cast anew on the premise that the government on the Chinese mainland was an aggressor which, subject to directions from Moscow, would use force to impose international Communism on Asia. Conversely, it was assumed that if the endorsement of the free nations were withheld this regime which was said to be "alien" to the Chinese people--some sort of over-grown puppet of Moscow-would wither and eventually collapse. On this basis, recognition was not extended to Peking. The official view was that the National Government, which has retreated to the island of Taiwan, continued to speak for all of China. We cut off all trade with the mainland and did what could be done to encourage other countries to follow suit. In a similar fashion, we led a diplomatic campaign year after year against the seating of the Chinese People's Republic in the United Nations. We drew an arc of military alliances on the seaward side of China and undergirded them with the deployment of massive American military power in bases throughout the Western Pacific.

Much has happened to call into question the assumptions in which these policies towards China have been rooted. In the first place, the People's Republic has shown itself to be neither a part of a Communist monolith nor a carbon copy of Soviet Russia. The fact is that, of the numerous divisions which have arisen within the Communist world, the differences between Moscow and Peking have been the most significant. They so remain today although the more rasping edges of the conflict appear somewhat tempered by the war in Viet Nam.

At the same time, the government on the mainland has not only survived, it has provided China with a functioning leadership. Under its direction, Chinese society has achieved a degree of economic and scientific progress, apparently sufficient for survival of an enormous and growing population and sophisticated enough to produce thermo-nuclear explosions.

In the last two years, the so-called Cultural Revolution in China has rekindled what has been a periodic expectation that the Peking government is on the verge of collapse and the way is open for a military return to the mainland of the National Government on Taiwan. There seems to be little doubt that the turmoil in China has caused serious disruptions. What appears in conflict in the cultural revolution, however, is not the Peking structure as such but the adequacy of its ideological content. That would be a far cry from the kind of popular revulsion which might be expected to open the doors to a new regime.

In any event, the worst of the upheavals within China appear to have ended months ago, without any irreparable break in the continuity of the government or the operations of the economy. It is the height of folly to envision, in the present situation, an occasion for the overthrow of the Peking government by external military pressures. Indeed, what would be better calculated to end, overnight, the remaining ferment on the mainland than a plausible threat to the security of China or an actual attack on Chinese territory?

If the People's Republic, then, is here to stay, what of the other assumption on which this nation's policy respecting China has long been based? What of the assumption that the Chinese government is an expanding and aggressive force? That it is restrained from sweeping through Asia because we have elected to meet its challenge along the 17th Parallel which divides the Northern and Southern parts of Viet Nam?

In recent years, the present Chinese government has not shown any great eagerness to use force to spread its ideology elsewhere in Asia although Chinese armies have been employed in assertion of the traditional borders of China. To be sure, China has given enthusiastic encouragement and has promised to support wars of national liberation. However, China has not participated directly in these wars and support, when it has been forthcoming, has been limited and circumspect.

In Viet Nam, for example, there is certainly Chinese encouragement and aid for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Chinese involvement, however, has been far more peripheral than our own. The enemy soldiers with whom we are compelled to grapple are all Vietnamese and, in fact, mostly South Vietnamese. At every stage of the war, the assistance we have provided to South Viet Nam has far exceeded the aid from China and from all outside sources to the Viet Cong and North Viet Nam-both in terms of men and material. There is Chinese equipment in South Viet Nam but there are no Chinese battalions. Even in North Viet Nam, Chinese manpower is reported to amount, at most, to one-tenth of our forces in Viet Nam, and the great bulk of these Chinese are labor troops, some involved in air-defense but most of them engaged in repairing bomb damage to roads, railroads, bridges, and the like.

Chinese actions in Tibet, and along the Himalayan frontier of India, are often cited as evidence of militant Chinese Communist aggression. The fact is, however, that Tibet has been regarded, for many decades, as falling within China's over-all boundaries. Not only the Peking government but also the Chinese National Government on Taiwan insists that Tibet belongs to China. India also acknowledges such to be the case. Indeed, American policy has never recognized Tibet as other than Chinese territory.

In the case of the border war with India in 1962, the Chinese Communists occupied territories which, again, not only they, but also the Chinese Nationalists, consider to be Chinese. It is not precisely characteristic of a militant expansionism, moreover, for a government to withdraw its military forces from a territory which they have invested. Yet, the Peking government did so from parts of India which were occupied in 1962 as well as from North Korea.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »