Foothold in China

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Although I agree with the general theme of your Wednesday editorial on "New China," I would like to make a few correcting comments.

The chief argument for recognition of the Chinese Communists is not that non-recognition would make Mao Tze-tung "completely dependent on, and subservient to, Moscow," for Russia will not provide capital goods and technical skill to the Chinese Reds "whether it can spare them or not." Russia can ill afford to export these items, and is not likely to do so just because the Chinese Communists would like very much to have them. Non-recognition by the U.S. would merely make industrialization unfeasible in China. China in that case would neither starve nor collapse nor become Russia's puppet, though China would naturally gravitate emotionally towards the U.S.S.R.

What really speaks in favor of recognition, however, is the consequent possibility of America's retaining a foot-hold in China through diplomatic, commercial, educational, and missionary ties, thus leaving China's door open for influence by the West toward the democratic and independent direction. If recognition is delayed for too long, all existing ties between China and the U.S. will be severed, and it will be difficult to re-establish them in the future.

That the Soviet Union could use American non-recognition of China as "good propaganda material" is a misconceived idea, for not only does the U.S. recognize many governments other than those "of whose politics it approves," but non-recognition in 1949 also by no means precludes recognition in 1950 or after, hence would make very weak propaganda material indeed. Oliver Lee, '51