The Ostrich Rears Its Head

The plan advanced by Conlon Associates Ltd. of California for two-step U.S. recognition of Communist China and the "Republic of Taiwan" does not present devastatingly new policy or argument. What is unusual is that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should raise the issue of recognition without jeopardizing the political future of any "recognition" advocates. Senator Fulbright, who seemed to be praising with faint damns, called the private agency's report "thought-provoking," adding, "I do not believe that the United States should recognize Communist China at the present time."

It is true that the loss of China to the Communists was a traumatic experience from which American foreign policy has yet to recover. It is also true, however, that the State Department and the Administration have had far too little confidence in the ability of the American people to accept international measures that require emotional maturity. "Foreign policy by policy by opinion pool," an invention of the fifties, ignores the tremendous power and prestige a President and his Administration possesses to lead public opinion into accepting sound policy.

While almost anyone would agree with Senator Fulbright that to recognize Red China now would be folly, one wonders why the Conlon report was undertaken now (or why "independent research" had to be undertaken at all), when the proposed exchanges and negotiation could have been put into motion more easily and more practically at an earlier time.

One wonders if the Conlon Associates report, regardless of its considerable merit, may not be used as a politician Rocinante on which foreign policy makers can charge the windmills of "public opinion." While Franklin Roosevelt advanced an unpopular foreign policy through major speeches (witness his "Quarantine the Aggressors" speech of 1937), future foreign policy-makers may hide behind the testimony of "experts," to give authority to innovation. It is encouraging to see that someone is interested in Red China recognition, but at the same time it is saddening to see that the arguments must be presented in such an oblique manner.