The Communist Threat in the Taiwan Area | Page 5

in the face of armed aggression, which is part and parcel of a
continuing program of using armed force to conquer new regions.

I do not believe that the United States can be either lured or frightened
into appeasement. I believe that, in taking the position of opposing
aggression by force, I am taking the only position which is consistent
with the vital interests of the United States and, indeed, with the peace
of the world.
Some misguided persons have said that Quemoy is nothing to become
excited about. They said the same about south Korea--about Viet-Nam,
about Lebanon.
Now I assure you that no American boy will be asked by me to fight
just for Quemoy. But those who make up our Armed Forces--and, I
believe the American people as a whole--do stand ready to defend the
principle that armed force shall not be used for aggressive purposes.
Upon observance of that principle depends a lasting and just peace. It is
that same principle that protects the western Pacific free-world
positions as well as the security of our homeland. If we are not ready to
defend this principle, then indeed tragedy after tragedy would befall us.
But there is a far better way than resort to force to settle these
differences, and there is some hope that such a better way may be
followed.
That is the way of negotiation.
That way is open and prepared because in 1955 arrangements were
made between the United States and the Chinese Communists that an
Ambassador on each side would be authorized to discuss at Geneva
certain problems of common concern. These included the matter of
release of American civilians imprisoned in Communist China, and
such questions as the renunciation of force in the Formosa area. There
have been 73 meetings since August 1955.
When our Ambassador, who was conducting these negotiations, was
recently transferred to another post, we named as successor Mr. [Jacob
D.] Beam, our Ambassador to Poland. The Chinese Communists were
notified accordingly the latter part of July, but there was no response.
The Secretary of State, in his September 4th statement, referred to these
Geneva negotiations. Two days later, Mr. Chou En-lai, the Premier of
the People's Republic of China, proposed that these talks should be
resumed "in the interests of peace." This was followed up on
September 8th by Mr. Mao Tse-tung, the Chairman of the People's
Republic of China. We promptly welcomed this prospect and instructed

our Ambassador at Warsaw to be ready immediately to resume these
talks. We expect that the talks will begin upon the return to Warsaw of
the Chinese Communist Ambassador, who has been in Peiping.
Perhaps our suggestion may be bearing fruit. We devoutly hope so.
Naturally, the United States will adhere to the position it first took in
1955, that we will not in these talks be a party to any arrangements
which would prejudice rights of our ally, the Republic of China.
We know by hard experiences that the Chinese Communist leaders are
indeed militant and aggressive. But we cannot believe that they would
now persist in a course of military aggression which would threaten
world peace, with all that would be involved. We believe that
diplomacy can and should find a way out. There are measures that can
be taken to assure that these offshore islands will not be a thorn in the
side of peace. We believe that arrangements are urgently required to
stop gunfire and to pave the way to a peaceful solution.
If the bilateral talks between Ambassadors do not fully succeed, there is
still the hope that the United Nations could exert a peaceful influence
on the situation.
In 1955 the hostilities of the Chinese Communists in the Formosa area
were brought before the United Nations Security Council. But the
Chinese Communists rejected its jurisdiction. They said that they were
entitled to Formosa and the offshore islands and that, if they used
armed force to get them, that was purely a "civil war" and that the
United Nations had no right to concern itself.
They claimed also that the attack by the Communist north Koreans on
south Korea was "civil war," and that the United Nations and the
United States were "aggressors" because they helped south Korea.
They said the same about their attack on Viet-Nam.
I feel sure that these pretexts will never deceive or control world
opinion. The fact is that Communist Chinese hostilities in the Formosa
Straits area do endanger world peace. I do not believe that any rulers,
however aggressive they may be, will flout efforts to find a peaceful
and honorable solution, whether it be by direct negotiations or through
the United Nations.
My friends, we are confronted with a serious situation. But it is typical
of the security problems of