« 이전계속 »
believe there was an article in last Sunday's Post which would tend to corroborate this—they want to leave; the job is finished. On occasion they have been asked to stay on so that they could teach people how to run a textile mill, for example, which they had built.
So I think what the People's Republic is doing is building up reserves and resources of good-will and benefits within the so-called third world and now as a member of the United Nations, of course, Peking is placed in a more strategic position.
But as far as aggression is concerned, I think this committee's report will bear this statement out: China has enough to do internally to take care of the needs of its people and, therefore,
disavows and does not seem to have any aggressive designs, in my opinion, as far as the outside areas are concerned.
As for your specific question concerning Taiwan in talks with the highest Chinese officials, it was brought out that what they—that the issue of primary importance now is Indochina, not Vietnam but Indochina, an end to that war and the withdrawal of all U.S. personnel. Then they said, “Once that is done, we can consider other problems but until that is done there will be no progress between our two countries on other matters; as far as Taiwan is concerned we have patience; we can wait.” And they will wait, no matter how long it takes, because if I remember correctly, in the Shanghai communique it was stated this was a matter which the Chinese themselves would have to settle.
Chairman PROXMIRE. My time is just about up. Before I yield to the House Majority Leader, let me just ask one other question: The rhetoric of the Chinese has been very hostile and aggressive at times, especially directed against this country. Without trying to analyze their designs or their impulses in terms of their potential, is it or is it not true that because they have a very limited navy, rudimentary air force, very rudimentary nuclear power, that any threat to this country would have to be limited to our interests in the contiguous areas of Asia, that they couldn't possibly represent an overseas threat because of the inadequacy of their navy and air force, and that their economy simply wouldn't support a substantial attack except, as I say, virtually on their borders?
Is that correct in your view?
Senator MANSFIELD. I would agree, although we have to keep in mind that the Chinese have developed at Lop Nor a nuclear capacity, that they have missiles, at least of intermediate range. They are working, I believe, on long-range missiles. This is something which I just picked up from reading the public prints but I believe it to be true. But the time to worry about China is when an outsider gets close to its borders and the example, of course, is the United Nations penetration to the Yalu during the Korean war which brought the Chinese volunteers in-over a million of them. Incidentally, Mao Tse-Tung's eldest son was killed in that struggle. There was always the possibility, at least I thought so, that the Indochina involvement might get us involved with China if it was carried too far.
There have been—there were two American fliers who were shot down over the island of Hainan which is a part of Kwangtung province. They are in captivity in Peking. We pleaded with the Chinese for consideration to be given to them. We didn't get much satisfaction because their incarceration is being tied to the ending of the war in Indochina, and I repeat they always say Indochina because they tie Laos, Cambodia and the two Vietnams together.
I think it should be brought out that earlier, in the latter years of the last decade, there were anywhere from 40,000 to 50,000 Chinese labor troops supported by antiaircraft batteries and military personnel engaged in repairing the bridges, the railroads and the roads which come down from China into North Vietnam. They have been withdrawn. They may or may not be back there at the present time, I do not know.
Furthermore, in Northern Laos a number of roads—well, a road has been built
from Meng La in the extreme southern part of Yunan Province into Laos, with the consent of the Lao Government, not the present but a previous government, and that comes down to a place called Muong Sai and then branches eastward connecting with a North Vietnamese road at Dienbienphu and westward--the road has been extended almost to the Thai border. So there are these elements or there were in the case of the labor troops in Indochina, in North Vietnam, and there are these labor troops protected by antiaircraft batteries and military personnel in Northern Laos, but that is all I know.
There are no Chinese troops in Korea, they were removed years ago, and there are no Chinese troops that I know of stationed in any other part of the world. But when you get close to China's borders, then you have to be very careful because they will fight then.
Chairman PROXMIRE. Congressman Boggs.
I would like to congratulate the distinguished Majority Leader for a very fine statement.
I have just one or two questions.
Senator, in connection with that last line of questioning, was there any discussion during your trip about the rather heavy concentration of Russian power along the Chinese frontier?
Senator MANSFIELD. Yes, there was, and I think that one of the biggest problems in the minds of the highest officials of the People's Republic of China is the question of the border differences with the Soviet Union. It is interesting to note that while those meetings had been suspended, that about a week after President Nixon returned from his journey to Peking, the Soviet delegate appeared and the meetings were resumed.
I just happened to read in the paper yesterday where a new Chinese negotiator has been named. He is higher in rank, I understand, than his predecessor.
What the Chinese are interested in at this time is a rectification of the frontier because they feel, for example, the island in the USSURI over which there was some fighting some months ago is half theirs, whereas the Russians say their border goes across the river even into some of the Chinese territory.
Nothing has been settled yet, but this is the most important question; and, in my opinion, the chasm, the gulf, between the Soviet Union and China is wide and deep, and unless they are forced together, it will remain so for some time to come.
It is interesting to note that under the czars in the last century, something on the order of 300,000 to 400,000 square miles were taken away from the Manchu Empire then in control of China; and while I can only speculate, I have an idea that those lands, much of them virgin, are in the back of the minds of both the Chinese and the Soviet Union.
It is my understanding that there are something on the order of just under a million Soviet troops strung along the 4,500-mile frontier, and I was told that there are also 300,000 on the border in Mongolia. Í do not know whether that is an accurate figure or not, but the acceptable figure seems to be 44 divisions along the frontiers.
Representative Boggs. You therefore see continuation of tension between the Soviet Union and China?
Senator MANSFIELD. Yes, I do.
Representative Boggs. Would you make the same observation with respect to the United States and China?
Senator MANSFIELD. I would say that once we are out of IndoChina that conditions will improve with China.
My feeling is that China wants to improve its relations with the United States, but we have to recognize that there is a war going on on the borders of two countries, Laos and Vietnam, which are contiguous to China. Getting back to a question raised by the chairman, which I forgot to answer, the Chinese said, “We are interested in what you say, but we will wait and see what you do.” That could be tied in with the statement issued yesterday by the Chinese because of the fact that U.S. bombers are getting within seconds in their attacks on North Vietnam, within seconds of the Chinese border.
Representative Boggs. Senator, you have made some comments which I thought were very interesting about Chinese trade policy. Were there any discussions, did you or Senator Scott have any discussions with the Chinese on the possibility of increasing trade between our two countries, and, if so, what in particular may have been discussed?
Senator MANSFIELD. Not too much because I tried to point out we will have to find out what the Chinese want that we have, and I do not know what we have that they need outside of electronic equipment and heavy machinery.
Our trade with China has been minimal, mostly it has been through Hong Kong, which furnishes much of the hard currency for the Chinese treasury.
They certainly were interested in seeing to it that we viewed the industrial exhibits in Shanghai, which is a continuing exhibit and really worth seeing. They took us through the three buildings which housed the Canton Fair, and it was very much worth seeing.
They had invited over 30 American businessmen to come there. We got there just through the middle of it, and at that time about half of the 30 or so Americans had showed up.
I think while they did not push it—they are not a very pushy people—I would say that my impression is that they are interested in trade with this country.
I mentioned the fact that the President had lifted the lid off the nonstrategic items. This does not tie in but, in terms of exchanges, Senator Scott was talking of the glories of the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Pittsburgh Orchestra, he has to play them off slaughter), and other things which are indigenous to Pennsylvania, so I started talking about cowboys and Indians in Montana, and during the questioning I brought up the question of copper.
“Oh,” the Chinese official said, “that is not on the list,” that they could buy, you see. It is just an aside remark. They are trying to do what they can with what they have.
It is an early-to-bed, early-to-rise society. There is a great veneration for Mao Tse Tung and there is a great dedication to the state, and when Chou En-lai said, "For the first time since the opium wars”—and that was 1840 to 1842—"we are standing on our own legs," he meant it. They are, because what they have on the mainland is a unified society getting by on not—well, on a spare existence but getting by and working together and bringing about a new day for this old country. The year 1949 is looked on as the dividing line. Before that, it is B.C. in our category; and after that, after the liberation itself, A.D. It is before liberation and after liberation, and everything starts from 1949.
Representative Boggs. Just one further question. Would you expect this collectivist society to evolve somewhat like the Soviet society has?
Today, as I gather from your testimony, the people are pretty well satisfied without most creature comforts that we accept and take for granted in this country. I can think of many fields for trade like agricultural equipment, equipment for buildings and hotels, air conditioning, and all sorts of things. Do you see any of that coming about?
Senator MANSFIELD. Not at this time. They do buy wheat which, of course, is important to me, coming from one of the big wheatproducing States.
From what I have seen of the Soviet Union and China, I would say that they are really two different societies. Ideologically, they are supposed to be the same, but you have more unrest, I would think, perhaps not unrest, but more of a desire for consumer goods in the Soviet Union and less of a desire to sacrifice, which I think would be in reverse applicable to the People's Republic of China.
May I say, as long as the distinguished minority leader is here, that this trip which we took together, and I am glad it was bipartisan trip, was an eye opener. We were treated with every courtesy and every respect during the course of our short stay there. I want to repeat, in closing, and if there are any more questions, I would be glad to answer them, but I would say again that I am not an expert. I am a student of this area and have been interested for a long time. Every remark I have made is subject to various interpretations, but I have given you an honest analysis of the situation over there as I saw it and to the best of my ability.
Now, there may be areas where there is dissent and discontent, I would not doubt it, but we did not see them. We were given freedom and flexibility to travel around, to talk to people, to do what we wanted, and it is on that basis that I make these remarks today.
Representative Boggs. Thank you very much, Senator.
As you know, Congressman Ford and I are following you and Senator Scott to China next week.
Senator MANSFIELD. Well, I am delighted, may I say, that the majority leader and minority leader of the House are going, and I hope that Senator Scott and I can get together with you before you
One thing I want to ask on behalf of both of us is a getting together with you as soon as we can after your return because we would like to check our reactions with yours.
Representative Boggs. Well, we look forward to both of those meetings.
Thank you, Senator.
Chairman PROXMIRE. Could I ask you just one other question, Senator Mansfield, before we hear from the distinguished minority leader.
We made a major breakthrough in policy with respect to China with the presidential and senatorial visits. Other than the Vietnam war, which you have mentioned with emphasis, what are the other major barriers ahead in improving U.S. and Chinese relations? Specifically, how would you perceive a Vietnam settlement and resolution of the Taiwan question in our relations?
Senator MANSFIELD. Well, first, let me say I think President Nixon is entitled to all the credit in the world for the initiative which he undertook in endeavoring to bring about a normalization of relations with China.
Secondly, may I say that on the basis of personal meetings with him since February 1969, the month after he came into office, he has been interested in paving the way to a normalization because he tried to keep alive the Warsaw talks which had been going on in effect since the Geneva Accord of 1954. He widened the spectrum so that more Americans could visit China if they could get Chinese visas. He removed the primary and secondary boycott on trade which had been in effect and which was utterly worthless since the days of the Korean war, and then he treated China to the same basis as other Communist countries in the matter of nonstrategic items.
So I have nothing but words of praise for President Nixon. I think he did a good job, a necessary job because you just cannot ignore 845 million people.
Now, getting back to your question, how the Vietnamese—how the Indochina war will be settled, I do not know.
Chairman PROXMIRE. Then I am also concerned with what other major barriers there may be in the way of good relations, improved relations with China.
Senator MANSFIELD. Those are the two significant ones and of primary importance.
As Senator Scott and I were told, there would be no chance for further progress until the war in Indochina was settled. Again I will repeat what we were told about Taiwan, that Peking had a lot of patience, a lot of time, and they were not concerned about a settlement in the immediate future.
Chairman PROXMIRE. I see.
Senator Scott, we are very honored to have you here, and I might point out that Senator Scott is a distinguished Chinese scholar of many, many years. You cannot visit his office without recognizing his love for and deep appreciation and understanding of Chinese art and Chinese culture generally. We are very honored and happy to have you here.
I understand, I had not realized this, Senator Mansfield told us you had visited China before also.
STATEMENT OF HON. HUGH SCOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Scott. I understand that Representative Boggs and Representative Ford will be visiting some of the cities we visited and some others which we did not since they will be in the industrial north,