The Communist Threat in the Taiwan Area | Page 3

of armed aggression, we would
welcome in the present circumstances negotiations that could have a
fruitful result in preserving the peace of the Formosa area and reaching
a solution that could be acceptable to all parties concerned including, of
course, our ally, the Republic of China.
On the morning of August 23d the Chinese Communists opened a
severe bombardment of Quemoy, an island in the Formosa Straits off

the China Coast. Another island in the same area, Matsu, was also
attacked. These two islands have always been a part of Free
China--never under Communist control.
This bombardment of Quemoy has been going on almost continuously
ever since. Also, Chinese Communists have been using their naval craft
to try to break up the supplying of Quemoy with its 125,000 people.
Their normal source of supply is by sea from Formosa, where the
Government of Free China is now located.
Chinese Communists say that they will capture Quemoy. So far they
have not actually attempted a landing, but their bombardment has
caused great damage. Over 1,000 people have been killed or wounded.
In large part these are civilians.
This is a tragic affair. It is shocking that in this day and age naked force
should be used for such aggressive purposes.
But this is not the first time that the Chinese Communists have acted in
this way.
In 1950 they attacked and tried to conquer the Republic of Korea. At
that time President Truman announced the intention of protecting
Formosa, the principal area still held by Free China, because of the
belief that Formosa's safety was vital to the security of the United
States and the free world. Our Government has adhered firmly ever
since 1950 to that policy.
In 1953 and 1954 the Chinese Communists took an active part in the
war in Indochina against Viet-Nam.
In the fall of 1954 they attacked Quemoy and Matsu, the same two
islands they are attacking now. They broke off that attack when, in
January 1955, the Congress and I agreed that we should firmly support
Free China.
Since then, for about 4 years, Chinese Communists have not used force
for aggressive purposes. We have achieved an armistice in Korea which
stopped the fighting there in 1953. There is a 1954 armistice in
Viet-Nam; and since 1955 there has been quiet in the Formosa Straits
area. We had hoped that the Chinese Communists were becoming
peaceful--but it seems not.
So the world is again faced with the problem of armed aggression.
Powerful dictatorships are attacking an exposed, but free, area.
What should we do?

Shall we take the position that, submitting to threat, it is better to
surrender pieces of free territory in the hope that this will satisfy the
appetite of the aggressor and we shall have peace?
Do we not still remember that the name of "Munich" symbolizes a vain
hope of appeasing dictators?
At that time the policy of appeasement was tried, and it failed. Prior to
the Second World War Mussolini seized Ethiopia. In the Far East
Japanese warlords were grabbing Manchuria by force. Hitler sent his
armed forces into the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles Treaty.
Then he annexed little Austria. When he got away with that, he next
turned to Czechoslovakia and began taking it bit by bit.
In the face of all these attacks on freedom by the dictators, the powerful
democracies stood aside. It seemed that Ethiopia and Manchuria were
too far away and too unimportant to fight about. In Europe
appeasement was looked upon as the way to peace. The democracies
felt that if they tried to stop what was going on that would mean war.
But, because of these repeated retreats, war came just the same.
If the democracies had stood firm at the beginning, almost surely there
would have been no World War. Instead they gave such an appearance
of weakness and timidity that aggressive rulers were encouraged to
overrun one country after another. In the end the democracies saw that
their very survival was at stake. They had no alternative but to turn and
fight in what proved to be the most terrible war that the world has ever
known.
I know something about that war, and I never want to see that history
repeated. But, my fellow Americans, it certainly can be repeated if the
peace-loving democratic nations again fearfully practice a policy of
standing idly by while big aggressors use armed force to conquer the
small and weak.
Let us suppose that the Chinese Communists conquer Quemoy. Would
that be the end of the story? We know that it would not be the end of
the story. History teaches that, when powerful despots can gain
something through aggression, they try, by the same methods, to gain
more and more and more.