ASIA: The Two Anti-Communists

In recent weeks Syngman Rhee has sat in his mansion at Seoul, listening impatiently to a steady stream of U.S. diplomats, Congressmen and other official visitors telling him he must not disturb the peace, and spelling out the U.S. policy decision not to help him if he tries to go it alone. The news was. hard for Rhee to hear, harder still to accept.

He fought and dodged, sulked, pretended he did not understand, threatened to involve his country in national suicide, if necessary. Last week, to one guest fresh from the U.S., Rhee declared that he would attack North Korea even if the U.S. would not help him. His guest heard him out, then said quietly: “Mr. President, that’s nonsense, and you know it.” For once President Rhee had no reply.

Mutual Fear. Then, unexpectedly, one day last week, Syngman Rhee flew to Formosa for talks with Chiang Kaishek. The two anti-Communist leaders had specific issues to discuss: 1) What should be done with the 14,600 Chinese prisoners who are due for release at Panmunjom next January? 2) Should Chinese Nationalist troops be sent to Korea if fighting is resumed? But what drew them together was a mutual fear that their U.S. ally was drawing back from the front line in Asia.

Formosa newspapers have recently played up the decision of Admiral Robert Carney, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, not to transfer landing craft “at this time” to Free China’s navy, and his statement that he is checking U.S. Pacific naval operations “to see where we can cut back.” They also singled out a remark by Secretary of State Dulles that the U.S. is not forever opposed to the recognition of Red China, if it gives up its aggressive ways.

Compliments Exchanged. Chiang and Rhee put on a great show of anti-Communist solidarity. Said Chiang of Rhee: “A distinguished revolutionary leader.” Said Rhee of Chiang: “He has fought Communism longer than anyone else.”

They also proclaimed their alternative to U.S. disengagement: “We are certain that victory over Communism in Asia is the key to world peace and stability . . . Our two countries therefore jointly appeal to all governments and peoples of the free countries in Asia to organize a united, anti-Communist front, and earnestly hope that our desire to achieve solidarity . . . will have the support of other freedom-loving nations, particularly . . . the United States.”

Next day Rhee told 1,000 Chinese civil servants that Asians must fight Communism together, “as you would fight cholera, smallpox or any other contagious disease.”

“Acheson’s Shoes.” A deep-seated misgiving about U.S. Asian policy is spreading among anti-Communists in Southeast Asia, who fear that the Korean truce is the first sign of U.S. withdrawal. In Hong Kong, anti-Communist Chinese newspapers, even those critical of Chiang, now talk about “U.S. double-faced diplomacy.” One said that “Ike and Dulles have stepped right into Acheson’s shoes.” Though Secretary Dulles has bulled through a special $387 million grant to bolster anti-Communist resistance in Indo-China, Frenchmen frequently grumble: Why should we fight our Communists to a finish when you did not fight yours to a finish in Korea?

Last week Ho Chi Minh, IndoChina’s Red leader, in a roundabout reply to questions from Stockholm’s liberal Expresses, announced scornfully that if France, “having learned the lessons of these years of war, wishes to have an armistice, [we] will be ready to meet the French proposal.” The conditions? Said Ho: “The French government has to stop hostilities.” In Paris, one Cabinet minister remarked that Ho’s terms should not be considered, and was sharply rebuked by Premier Laniel’s office. The proposal, said the chairman of the Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, should be studied seriously.