MacARTHUR ON THE SPOT
General Douglas MacArthur is in the tough spot of anyone who has two bosses. His bosses are President Truman and the United Nations, and as usual they have him over the well-known barrel. Neither the President nor the U. N. will give MacArthur a clear-cut, up-to-date directive to follow in Korea. When the U. N. commander in the field tries to make up their deficiencies and define his position, his bosses are a lot quicker to jump on him than they are to tell him just what he and his armies are supposed to accomplish.
MacArthur in his latest statement said the "military weaknesses" of the Chinese Communists are such that they have no chance of winning the battle for Korea, and he offered to meet the enemy commander to discuss a truce. Making his point clear, he added that if the U.N. should decide to carry the war to mainland China the Communists would face "imminent military collapse." What was so awful about that? In ordinary circumstances a field commander might have no business talking as MacArthur does. But these are extraordinary circumstances, created not by him but by the timidity of his bosses. MacArthur’s original and only published orders-to throw out the aggressor and to secure a unified and independent Korea-have to all effects been rescinded. Until they are replaced with a coherent set of fresh orders, MacArthur's bosses will have no legitimate kick. . .
A sufficient and understandable restatement of U.N. aims in Korea is probably too much to hope for at this point. But General MacArthur has once again reminded everyone of the lack, and he may have spurred the U.N. to make at least a modicum of sense when it comes up with a promised declaration on the subject.
The current rumpus has brought forth a gallant defense of General MacArthur in, of all places, Great Britain. Anyone over there who says a good word for MacArthur is automatically consigned to Coventry: Lord Beaverbrook, the British publisher, has nevertheless said the good word with his usual pungent force. More power to him for perceiving the quality in General MacArthur that transcends all else. In MacArthur we have a commander who truly understands that the non-Communist world is fighting for its life in Asia.
THE PRESENT DANGER
General Marshall has cause to speak as he does when he says that the world's danger is a "great deal more serious" now than it was at the point of our worst reverses in Korea. The Soviet Union's known military preparations are more extensive and more threatening today than they have been at any time since World War II. General Marshall is not trying to tell us that World War III is just around the clock. But he is trying to remind us that the danger of World War III is a real and present danger. He is saying, very rightly, that the disputes in Congress over mobilizing our military manpower and dispatching troops where they are needed ought to be ended.
Our country is in danger . World War III is a possibility-this month, this year.
THE NATIONALISTS CAN HELP
A sensible official U.S. attitude, toward the Chinese Nationalists is at last in sight. In the State Department nowadays the active question is not whether to support and use the Chinese Nationalists in the struggle for Asia, but how to do it. Some officials say it should be done openly. Some say it should be done "covertly" At least for the record, no one in authority is saying it should not be done at all.
But there is still a big obstacle to effective action. The obstacle arises from the widespread notion that this is an all-or-nothing question. As too often posed, the only question is whether to let Chiang Kai-shek strictly alone or advocate his restoration to full power over all of China. No middle ground is offered, and that is unfortunate for all concerned. Many people who see the need of a new policy are honestly repelled by the thought of the U.S. going all-out for Chiang Kai-shek. Some others, not so honest, cultivate the notion that there is no middle ground in order to discourage any action whatever.
The truth is that a middle ground is the only ground the U.S. can practicably take today. Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces on Formosa cannot be left to wither away-events forbid it. No one can possibly know whether the Generalissimo has a chance to regain power over all China, and to make this the objective of U.S. policy would be both futile and unnecessary. The position that the U.S. can take, and is slowly moving to take, is dictated by the actual and visible circumstances of 1951.
First and foremost of these circumstances is the fact that the Nationalists survive-they refuse to die the death predicted for them by the mistaken prophets of yesterday. Second, the total victory of Communism in China which these same prophets proclaimed as an accomplished fact in 1949 and 1950 has simply not occurred. Instead the Chinese Communists are struggling to hold what they have. By their own accounts they are fighting to suppress discontent and rebellion in many parts of China.
All the U.S. government has to decide is whether to let the Nationalists do whatever they can do to compound this resistance and roll back Communism in China. In the circumstances, letting them do it means helping them do it. Help them with money, with arms, with technical advice, with a strong dash of supervision over the detailed uses of our aid. What the Nationalists actually do may take the form of intensified guerrilla attack on the mainland. It may also take the form of a limited beachhead invasion, presumably in South China. To whatever degree they succeed, we will be so much better off and the Communists will be so much worse off.
A new movement with new leaders may very well arise to guide China. But that is for the future to determine. For now, we have only to respect the unique tenacity and courage of Chiang Kai-shek in his long battle against Communism-and take full advantage of whatever the Nationalists can do now to help us now in the struggle for Asia. The eventual fate of Chiang Kai-shek is neither a proper nor a necessary concern of the U.S. government. It is the concern of our rightful allies, the people of China.
LET'S LOOK INTO IT
Here is something to be happy about. Free men everywhere are giving thought and impetus to various plans for building a better world, and nowhere is this truer than in the U.S. A case in point is the so-called Atlantic Union proposal, now before Congress. The proposal is quite simple. It calls on the President to invite the signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty to "explore" the prospects for a free federal union of nations roughly corresponding to our union of states. No commitment to join such a union is either expressed or implied. The U.S. is asked only to join the search party.
Senator Kefauver first offered a resolution along these lines in July 1949. Since then both the quantity and quality of sponsorship for the proposal have grown. In Congress, 27 senators and 89 representatives have endorsed the plan. Many respected leaders in business, education and public service are throwing in their support.
"It is our move," says Senator Kefauver. Congress should move toward an early decision on this proposal to examine the possibilities and the merits of Atlantic Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment