« 이전계속 »
sure China watchers like myself chortled about in the course of the trip; but I think that it required the trip of the President.
Chairman PROXMIRE. How about the basic question-Chinese improvement is going to constitute a threat or can be, is more likely to be constructive?
Mrs. KALLGREN. Well, to the first, I would agree with Mr. Wu that by itself it is a neutral fact. It ties in more with the political aspirations of the Chinese leadership. It seems to me that the possibilities of increased development for China requires the ending of the Vietnam war which would then open the possibility of improved AmericanChinese relations. But I think Taiwan is likely to remain a very serious issue, not in terms of an immediate threat but simply as an issue we have put on the back burner which will be a lot longer in resolutionthat, and the defense treaty with Japan.
Chairman PROXMIRE. What changes do either one of you see or both of you see in the Chinese policy as a result of the passing from the scene of Mao? We have the information this morning that he does seem to be seriously ill.
Mr. Wu. I think that Chou En-lai, for instance, who is a very able man, an experienced administrator, still needs Mao's authority so that he could say this has the chairman's approval and so on. If Mao should pass from the scene, that would disappear and Chou alone, as of now, I would doubt has the authority to take over completely, to assume that position.
Chairman PROXMIRE. Very interesting. What happens? Would they lose a very important unifying force that constitutes an element of serious strength with Mao's passing?
Mr. Wu. Yes, I think they would, in the immediate future then, try to rule by some sort of committee, but I would doubt that committee the composition of that committee--could be very stable; and we just don't know.
Chairman PROXMIRE. There has been a history of divergence and conflict in China, certainly over the last 100 years or so prior to Mao's ascendancy, hasn't there?
Mr. Wu. And especially as a result of the cultural revolution and the postcultural revolution purges in the central committee. I would think that with that background and that atmosphere there could not be very much mutual trust, and the confidence of people in one another on the same committee would be very questionable.
Chairman PROXMIRE. Mrs. Kallgren.
Mrs. KALLGREN. I think that one of the characteristics of revolutionary societies is the transition crisis, which I don't doubt would be very
difficult for China. I would concur with Mr. Wu about a collective leadership.
I think it would be a time for great restraint by the United States and other countries in their relations with the Chinese because I think that the one thing that is universal in China is a strong sense of nationalism. Many countries have used the external threat, whether actual or not, as a way of keeping unity. I would hope in that transitional period—which might be very lengthy, that pressure on the Chinese, perceived by the Chinese or actual, would be minimal. I think that decisionmaking would be much in abeyance for some period of time. So there might be little change of progress in our relations for the short range, in any case.
Chairman PROXMIRE. Senator Fulbright.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, I don't know. I hate to detain you too long, but I would like to ask you what incentive the Chinese have for planning to attack the United States? Mrs. Kallgren, do you think that is their purpose?
Mrs. KALLGREN. No.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you think the Chinese are planning, assuming they become strong, to attack the United States?
Mr. Wu. Now, no.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, at any time? What incentive would they have?
Mr. Wu. I cannot see any at this time, but who knows in the future?
Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, that's right. You can only judge it from what you see now. I wonder what purpose would they have?
Mr. Wu. I would see no particular purpose, no.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you think there is likely to be trouble; that is, military trouble, between China and Russia?
Mr. Wu. That is a very difficult question. I think as every day passes the chance of military trouble lessens between the two. I would, however, say that there are certain critical times that could happen, especially if these critical times happened soon and that is at the time Mr. Mao passes from the scene or if there is some internal trouble after that event. That could be a very critical period.
Senator FULBRIGHT. I didn't get to finish my very tentative discussion about the GNP which you use and which all American economists seem to use. It seems to me it is a very untrustworthy way to try to compare two different economies such as ours and theirs is quite a difference in the items that make up those GNP's; isn't there? They really have very little relevance, it seems to me. To say China's GNP is one-eighth of ours, I don't think it means that the life of people in China is measured in that fashion in any very significant way. Do you think it does?
Mr. Wu. That is precisely one of the points I was making, that this kind of international comparison
Senator FULBRIGHT. They are very faulty, whether it is China or any other, or nearly any other country, except that perhaps you can find one I don't know where it could be-as extravagant as we are. I am not sure whether you could find one or not.
Well, is it a fair question to ask you if there has been any change during the last 10 years between the strength and influence of the United States and China? Have we become stronger or less strong compared to China? Is that a question that is feasible to ask you?
Mr. Wu. Well, that, too, is very difficult to answer.
Senator FULBRIGHT. The reason I ask, I have the feeling that due to our misguided policies we are much less strong and influential in the eyes of most of the world than we were ten years ago. That isn't just relative to China. Our difficulties and our problems, particularly in the domestic field have grown so in the last 10 years that we are in greater difficulty than our people are willing to admit. This is the reason why I am some Members of the Senate have urged a change in policy, because it hasn't been beneficial to our own strength and influence as a community.
Would you have any comment, Mrs. Kallgren, on that, or is that not a fair question?
Mrs. KALLGREN. No, I think it is a fair question. I think that the changes that have occurred in our relations with China date perhaps from 1970–71, and I think they are all, by and large, for the better. I believe that many of the developing countries do see in certain of the Chinese experiences potential lessons for themselves. The fact is that very few countries have made the kind of modernization leap that is represented in Japan, and many of the Chinese lessons appear to be transferrable.
Now, I would hope—whether it is in Africa, as a spinoff perhaps of the Tanzanian Railroad, or in some areas of Southeast Asia (which is one of the areas where Chinese trade might develop, by the way, in the next decade or thereabouts)—I would hope that those countries would adapt, as the Chinese have suggested, their lessons from China to their own culture and to their own experience. I would think in this respect that there may well be some in the Chinese leadership who perhaps have some questions about the present tactics that the North Vietnamese Government has pursued: for instance, in abandoning the Chinese style of how wars like this might be fought. So I don't think that all of the Chinese lessons, or experiences, can be translated. But many of them now are being experimented with. For countries not geographically close to China, it is easier to experiment since there is perhaps less problem in terms of political relationships.
Senator FULBRIGHT. You mentioned in your testimony that you were a China watcher and had been in Taiwan and in Hong Kong. Have you been in China itself?
Mrs. KALLGREN. As a child, I was raised in China.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, we have had two Members of the Senate, as you know, plus staff people, in addition to a number of witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee, who have been there in recent months. I think they generally were rather surprised by what they saw. It may be that they were given a guided tour and didn't see very much, but what they saw they were quite favorably impressed with—the progress, which is consistent with what you, I thought, said with your interviews
Mrs. KALLGREN. Yes; I think that is true, sir.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Senator Mansfield--well, you know about itand Senator Scott, but in addition to that, some of the staff people and others got beyond the officials and were not as confined to official circles, and some of them did travel about the country. All seemed to report that there was a feeling of, well, certainly not of alienation, if not of real enthusiasm for their lot in life. Most of them said the people they saw on the streets had the appearance of being well fed and reasonably happy; that is, their expressions were not too unhappy, not like you see when you walk in New York City. (Laughter.]
How do you interpret this? What does it mean to you?
Mrs. KALLGREN. I think, sir, it represents the fact that there has been progress.
Now, I suppose the question that I find so hard is to appraise how much of the progress is due to Chinese qualities and how much is due to the Chinese Communists. It seems to me that any government would have made efforts in the aftermath of World War II, much as the present leadership has, to provide a more rational distribution of limited resources. I think that many people, the Chinese included, find a sense of equity, of justice, to be a very important matter of life, and I think there is a very substantial amount of that, though it is not the whole picture.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Don't you think most people appreciate justice if they ever come in contact with it?
Mrs. KALLGREN. Yes, that's right. Senator FULBRIGHT. So it isn't peculiar to the Chinese; that would affect nearly everybody if they felt they were living in a society that had respect for justice and equity?
Mrs. KALLGREN. Yes, that is true, sir. But I think if there are only x number of band-aids available, and they really go to the people who need band-aids, rather than to those who happen to have money, and whether or not they are sold at a moderate price--that is an important aspect of Chinese society.
I wouldn't want to ignore the fact that people leave China, you you know. We do have the fact that 20,000 people, more or less, swim out into Hong Kong. I have interviewed some of them. You ask: “Why did you leave?'' The reply usually is: “On one hand, there are many things that I liked in my home; but on the other hand, I personally left for better options.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Did you see the recent Gallup poll? I believe the poll estimated that of American young people between the ages, I think, of 18 and 29, some 30 percent of them would like to leave if they could.
Mrs. KALLGREN. No, I didn't see that.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, I don't advise you to see it. It is much better not to think of those things. (Laughter.]
Chairman PROXMIRE. You don't have to swim away. (Laughter.)
Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, they don't have the fare, apparently. They said they would like to leave if they could. They don't know how they could go if they wanted.
Nearly all countries have people who are dissatisfied. It is a matter of degree. The history of China is no secret; they had no place to go but up from 1945, at least they couldn't get much worse.
Mrs. KALLGREN. No, that is true.
There is no reason for us to have any other than a sympathetic interest for China for having participated in a relatively minor degree in the decimation of the country. We played a small part in 1839-40; we weren't the leaders, but I think we certainly bear a certain responsibility for it. On the other hand, I think it would be to the advantage of this country and all other countries if China did make progress. I don't see how it would contribute if she was torn with internal dissension or was threatened by internal aggression, if there is anybody thinking about it. And I don't know that they are.
Mrs. KALLGREN. I would concur, sir; but I do think one other aspect of it is that that development occurs in conjunction with her neighbors, the divided Koreas and with Japan, and I would be, I think, remiss if I didn't say I could imagine some difficulties there in the short run.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes. My time is up.
Senator FULBRIGHT. This is very interesting. You say you were born there?
Mrs. KallGREN. Yes, sir.
Mrs. KALLGREN. No-not born; I was born in San Francisco, and I went there when I was 6 weeks old and stayed there until I was 6
Senator FULBRIGHT. Where did you live?
Senator FULBRIGHT. And you are familiar with what his views were? He was there last winter.
Mrs. KALLGREN. Yes, he was.
Senator FULBRIGHT. He was one of those—there were several others there. Professor Galston and two or three others who came back, and our own physician, Dr. Pearson, the Capitol physician. I talked to him the other day about it. He seemed to be quite impressed by what he saw, recognizing the physical differences in certain aspects, but he thought that it was quite impressive, in his area of medicine.
I agree with you about the significance of the President's trip. I certainly applaud it and I hope we can follow through and that it will enable us to establish better relations, improving relations. I don't really see any good reason why we shouldn't. I can't see why we should be suspicious of their purposes.
I don't see why, unless they feel really threatened by Russia, they would devote an enormous amount of their efforts toward military equipment. I can understand the nuclear thing. All of them are afraid of nuclear weapons but to amass great quantities of tanks and bombs and guns doesn't seem to me to make much sense for China unless they think the Russians are going to attack them.
I wouldn't see why the Russians would attack them. So you see any reason why they should? The question of land remains there and they quarrel about that, indefinitely, because Russia did take an awful lot of land from them, but I doubt that that will be solved by arms.
Mrs. KALLGREN. I would distinguish between should and would. I certainly defer to Professor Wu but it would seem to me that if one turns to the should or would, we then have to confront those clashes in the north on the Ussuri River and those were serious. You know, it wouldn't be the first time that nations have perceived this interest in such a way that a clash occurs; but I would concur with Professor Wu that as every day passes the likelihood of it decreases. I think that the recent trip of the President, the recent trip to Moscow-I heard comments that were on TV-commenting on the fact that Russian