THE CASE AGAINST RECOGNIZING RED CHINA

STANLEY K. HORNBECK, onetime chief of the State Department's Office of Far Eastern Affairs in FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

THERE is little or no warrant for believing that our recognition of the Central People's [i.e., Chinese Communist] Government would cause the Communist world or any part of it to modify its over-all objectives and thus resolve or diminish the ultimate cause of tensions in Asia. The net effect probably would be to increase the self-confidence, the will to conquer, and the capabilities of the Soviet-Communist empire. Those who think otherwise would do well to review our recognition of the Soviet Government, and British recognition of the Central People's Government. The Soviet Government gave promises -- to desist, to refrain, to perform and to permit. Which of its promises has the Soviet Union honored? In what respect have its Communist rulers altered their over-all objectives?

The United Kingdom transferred its recognition from China's National Government to the newly established Central People's Government in 1950, without trading and on a basis of wishful assumption and trustful hope. In what respect has Communist China altered its objectives or shown itself to have been affected for the better by that gesture of confidence? Has the United Kingdom succeeded in exercising a "restraining influence?" The Central People's Government has snubbed the United Kingdom officially, confiscated British properties, destroyed British business and abused British nationals.

Nor is there warrant for the contention that recognition of the Central People's Government would give American policy-makers and negotiators greater latitude for manoeuvre, greater freedom of choice. It presumably would relieve the United States of some commitments, momentarily embarrassing, to the National Government; it would reduce at least one of the areas of discord between the United States and some of its allies; and it would satisfy at least one of the demands of the Communist world. But it simultaneously would enmesh the United States in commitments to a government hostile to the free world and party to the conspiracy which seeks to destroy it. In total effect it would reduce rather than enlarge the area wherein American policy-makers are free to make choices.

Recognition of the Central People's Government by the United States would presumably be followed promptly by its admission to the United Nations. Were this accompanied by the ejection of the National Government, it would mean one more delegation contributing to the Soviet-directed Communist effort in that forum and one less on the side of the free world.

One lesson should be learned: the Communist world will bargain, but Soviet Communist over-all policy is not for sale and cannot be purchased. Promises, yes; but abandonment of purposes, no. Change of heart, perhaps some day and for some reason, but not in return for "concessions" or to honor promises. In no transaction should the United States rob Peter to pay Paul. At no time should the United States think it possible to buy Communist basic policy.

A GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO DEMAND INFORMATION

The national Catholic weekly AMERICA:

AMERICA'S search for a solution to the problem of loyalty and security has turned of late to Chief Justice John Marshall, whose interpretation of privileges protected by the Fifth Amendment may help us to know what to do about uncooperative witnesses. Under Marshall's interpretation in the trial of Aaron Burr, it is clear that a witness may refuse to disclose any information which might aid in convicting him of crime, but that the Government has a right to demand from its citizens all other pertinent information in a legitimate inquiry. Embarrassment, or even disgrace, therefore, will not excuse a witness from responding.

To say that government has a right to demand cooperation from its citizens presumes that the citizens have a moral obligation to cooperate with legitimate government. This was something generally presumed in Marshall's time, but today it is something that Communists deny and others have lost sight of. Witnesses, then, who refuse to answer legitimate questions are challenging the foundations of political society itself.

The basic protection of rights is the moral law based on man's dignity. This same moral law, however, imposes on the citizen an obligation to obey legitimate authority. We cannot have it one way and not the other. If we believe that we have rights antecedent to government--freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly--which may not be curtailed by any government so long as their expression does not endanger the common good, then we must also conclude to men's moral obligation toward political society. Each generation has its own contribution to make to improve human living. Our generation is being asked to discover an equitable solution for subversive political activity and to reaffirm the basic tenets of democratic society.

THOSE OLD SCHOOLS WERE NOT SO GOOD

SLOAN WILSON, author of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and executive of the White House Conference on Education, in HARPER'S Magazine:

THE idea that we once had marvelous public schools in this nation, and that modern philosophies of education have ruined them, is the most obvious kind of nonsense. What kind of public schools existed 50 years ago? City schools were dull and dingy buildings, with classes of 40 or more pupils common. Country schools were usually one-room affairs, with children of widely varying age and ability taught at the same time. Few of the teachers 50 years ago had anywhere near as much education of any kind as most teachers today. The elementary school curriculum was pretty much limited to the Three Rs, and the high schools confined themselves to a college-preparatory program.

As school enrollments increased, the demand of the public proved insatiable. At school-board meetings, wistful parents kept showing up to ask for something new. Why not courses in dancing and music and tennis--it didn't seem fair that the children of the poor should be entirely cut off from such things. Shrewd managers of factories appeared to ask that vocational education be tailored to meet their immediate employment needs. People worried about safety asked why courses in driving automobiles couldn't be instituted. Others requested courses in family life to help reduce the divorce rate, and instruction about alcoholic beverages to help reduce alcoholism. The schools were asked to encourage good citizenship, patriotism and international understanding.

In spite of that, an extraordinary amount of progress has been made. More education is being passed on to more children than ever before in history, as well as more health care, entertainment and all the rest of it. The advance is perfectly measurable: the average scholastic attainments of soldiers in World War II were tested and found to be much higher than those of the soldiers in World War I.

Most suburban schools in America are incredibly good, compared to any sort of school in the past. Many centralized rural schools give the children of farmers an education as good as anyone in the nation can get. The people seem to vacillate between complacency at these gains and exaggerated horror at weaknesses which have not yet been overcome. Maybe everything would be all right if the public just realized the nobility of the goal it has set for the schools, and also realized the enormous amount of money, time and thought needed to achieve it.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.