Cold Wars, Hot Weapons

New Zealand Listener, Volume 32, Issue 816, 18 March 1955, Page 18

Cold Wars, Hot Weapons

Extracts from a recent commentary on the International News, broadcast from the Main National Stations of the NZBS_,

WANT to approach it [Formosa | tonight from a rather different angle from that which is commonly dealt with, and ... try and give you a picture of it as it appears from the other side of the Strait. I’m not saying this view is any more right or justified than the one commonly presented to us, but I think it’s one we must try and understand. I wish I could say I fully understood it myself,\and I envy the Federation of Labour, which apparently feels it knows so much about China that it can afford to turn down a free tour of observation. To see this other side, try and imagine New Zealand as having been the scene of a bitter and protracted civil war. A corrupt government has been overthrown by a majority of the population and driven out to take refuge in the Chatham Islands. There, with impressively large forces and overseas aid, it continually proclaims its intention to return and re-conquer New Zealand, an aim in which it has the sympathy, if not~the active support, of America. Would we, as members of the effective Government of New Zealand, not feel apprehensive at this? Would our fear be lessened if the expelled rump, occupied not only the Chathams, but held fortified outposts on Great Barrier and Stewart Islands? This roughly parallels the situation of China, Formosa and the off-shore islands .. . I’ve used the word "belong" and the question is, "Who does Formosa belong to?" There’s only one real answer to that-China. And that’s one of the few points of agreement between Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Tse-tung. Long part of the Chinese Empire, it was seized by Japan in 1894 and taken from her during the last war. Technically it remains vested in the United Nations, but the victorious Allies clearly acknowledged that this was to be in trust for China. But which China? The Communists want it to round off their territory and, they say, free them from the threat of aggression. Chiang wants it as evidence of his claim to China itself. This is an uneasy situation and is becoming less and less attractive even to America, Chiang’s chief and strongest ally. Western opinion, therefore, is turning more and more to some solution which will deal permanently with these rival claims. A significant pointer was the use by our own Prime Minister, Mr. Holland, of a phrase I think we'll come to hear more of. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference at London he spoke of "the Mainland Chinese" instead of the much more common term "Communist Chinese." I believe a likely outcome of all the bargaining and manoeuvring that’s been going on recently, both inside and outside the United Nations, will be the recognition by the United States of the People’s Republic and its admission to United Nations, where it will possibly, but, I think, not probably take over China’s permanent seat on the Security Council. In return, Mao may renounce his claim to Formosa, which would become an independent country with, I hope, a supervised plebiscite to determine the form of its own Government. An incidental result of this (not I suspect, unappreciated in America) would be that an invasion of Formosa wouldn’t then be an incident in a civil war, as it would undoubtedly be presented by Mao if it happened now, but active aggression

by one sovereign power on another, more readily justifying intervention by United Nations or other powers. This represents a shift in American policy which I believe to be not merely local and expedient, but symptomatic of a_ general change. Several people have commented recently on the fact that American policies are becoming more stable and temperate . . The privileged West is trying to remove the temptation to aggression and the use of force in general by and in the under-privileged East by raising the living standards of backward peoples. Their method of doing so, however, puts them at something of a moral disadvantage. Almost every statement on this subject is linked up with the need to thwart communism . . . Now the peoples of backward countries, though perhaps backward themselves, are not without guile. They realise that the greater the threat of Communist infiltration, or perhaps aggression, the greater the bonuses. 4 Such beneficial gestures as the Colombo Plan might carry more weight with them if they were to operate in, say, the British Cameroons, where, to the best of my knowledge, there’s never been any pointed Communist threat, and where, according to-a United Nations summary published this week, there is one doctor for every 78,000 people-the lowest figure in the world. But despite this perhaps cynical view, I believe the conscience of mankind is slowly working towards a genuinely altruistic concept of international relations, particularly in the, field of colonialism .. . Once the idea of personal freedom to live one’s own life and determine one’s own way of living has taken hold, it’s apt to take a firm hold. We, here, are familiar to the point of satiety with the processes of democracy, and take little interest in politics, domestic or foreign; but to peoples newly come to selfgovernment they are the staff of life... This liberating movement has, unhappily, become mixed up in many areas with the cold war. Both East and West obviously prefer that to a hot, thermonuclear war and will strive to keep it cold. To do so means keeping within bounds the insurrections, incidents and little wars that inevitably develop. So far they’ve succeeded, but I wonder whether they're not depriving themselves of the means of doing so in the future. ... America and Britain and, no doubt, Russia, are tending now to re-equip their armed forces with atomic weapons. I’ve an uneasy feeling that this is a breach of the unwritten rules and may change the whole character of the game, if one may speak so lightheartedly of such a grim subject. Small weapons stop small wars. Big weapons provoke big wars. Now is that a reasonable kind of equation, or a mere rhetorical flourish? At all events, the question I leave with you, and I think it’s worth more than-a moment’s thought, is this: "Can we fight a cold war with hot weapons?" -DR. A. M. FINLAY, March 6, 1955