V. A Single Enemy? Or a Single Ally?
Everybody knows that our foreign policy during the period of the war is to spot one enemy only. We attack only Japan. We try to be friends with every country other than Japan. This spirit can be seen in the manifestoes and other proclamations of the Government. Hence although Germany and Italy are the allies of our enemy, we still have every wish to bind their friendship, and hope that they will help our enemy the less in her war of aggression, and contribute more materially to our success by selling us armaments. Such a "one-enemy" foreign policy is the basis of our future success. Otherwise, the Nation will easily be led into a path of thorns, if we adopt the policy of allying with one today and cutting another tomorrow. In Molotov's report, there are several sharp sentences: "In foreign policy, the aim is always not to make more enemies, but rather to lessen the number of enemies." This can be jotted down as a note to the "one-enemy" policy.
But what about Mao Tsê-tung's idea? In fact he preaches "one-ally" policy. He has condemned them all, except for the Soviet Union. Now he again places Soviet Russia in another almost intangible world. What does he mean, then? Does he mean that we can satisfy our hunger by looking at a cake? In fact, this was the same old question long before disputed. We can all remember that the Communists were the advocates of a military alliance with Soviet Russia. Now it was Soviet Russia, not we, who declined. Those who were boasting of the alliance were Communists; and so were those who stopped it. Soviet Russia said that she alone was too weak and that she hoped China could find more allies. Because of this, the "one-ally" policy did not gain as much support as the British-American-French-Soviet union. When the British-French-Soviet parleys broke off, Mr. Mao found it difficult to give a good explanation, so that he could not but take up the old theory of "one-ally" to ward off attack.
The chief countries helping China in the war are Great Britain, the U. S. A., and Soviet Russia. In the past, at present, and in the future, their central powers of aiding China are economic power from Great Britain, political power from the U. S. A., and military power from Soviet Russia. It is a fact that even if Soviet Russia remains at peace, she can check Japan (unless Soviet Russia proclaims amity with Japan, and makes adequate assurances, in which case it will greatly influence our condition). But the economic power of Great Britain and the political power of the U. S. A. are also absolutely necessary. At present, we are still enjoying these advantages, and the breaking-up of the British-French-Soviet parleys does not influence this situation. We don't know why Mr. Mao is bent upon rejecting the friendly assistance of Great Britain and the U. S. Should we act like this if we believe that "the country and the nation are above all?" Now suppose we follow the Communists and throw ourselves into the bosom of Soviet Russia, are we sure that she will do everything for us? If she signs a treaty with our enemy, what then?
The most unreasonable point in Mao's discussion is his attitude toward Great Britain. He probably wants to please his superiors by guessing their ideas. Perhaps he thinks that the Third International is going back on the policy adopted years ago—the policy of "Anti-Britain" so much sung by Trotsky and his followers. Hence Mao starts this movement in China, and gathers false proofs that Japan and Great Britain will sooner or later be allies so that they can divide up China. Up to now, Mr. Mao's words have not yet become fact. Furthermore, Great Britain has reassured us that her policy towards China will not be changed. To us this is good news—but perhaps unhappy news for Mr. Mao.
Mr. Mao's opinion that we "may approach Germany" does not sound very safe or very natural. Mr. Mao does not adopt the foreign policy of "befriend those who help us and hate those who help our enemy," but rather of "befriend Soviet Russia's friend, attack Soviet Russia's enemies." This is flatly against the principles of independent foreign policy. The old German-Italian line advocated by Wang Ch'ing-wei is wrong because it makes us bend our knees. But we must also know what the new German line amounts to. Japan's rapprochement with Soviet Russia and Great Britain are rumors scattered out simultaneously, but are things that cannot be possible. According to foreign telegraphic reports, the German foreign minister is now trying to pull together Japan and Soviet Russia, with the hope of forming a future grand alliance among Germany. Italy, Japan, and Soviet Russia. As to the Japan-Soviet line, it is based upon the "double-south policy" of attacking Great Britain. Japan will move south from the Pacific and [Soviet] Russia will move south from Central Asia, so that British interest in all districts lying between the Near and the Far East will be equally divided up by [Soviet] Russia and Japan. Their method of procedure is like this: 1, A treaty will be signed by Soviet Russia, as the protector of Outer Mongolia, and Japan; Soviet Russia will stop enmity against "Manchukuo" and Japan, so that Japan may concentrate her attention on China. 2, A commercial treaty will be signed between them. 3, A final alliance promising mutual non-interference with appended clauses. Of course this is Germany's dream, or may be a flat rumor, since it is unbelievable that Soviet Russia should join Japan. Even from the point of material benefit, why should Soviet Russia act so as to hurt others but remain doubtful that she can derive real benefit? But to insure absolute safety, we must be careful of any German intrigue. We must warn her often. In the past we used to buy munitions from her, so we must have her goodwill. Now with the War, it is unlikely that Germany will still sell us munitions. Hence why must we still follow Germany and "approach her"? After all, what is the difference between this and the German-Italian line advocated by Wang Ch'ing-wei? Now, just a "warning": if [Soviet] Russia and Japan do join up to form an alliance, I must ask the Chinese Communist Party a question: Concerning the name, the Chinese Communist Party, are they going to throw away the word "Chinese" and adopt a Soviet Russian nationality, or, as said in the Hsin Min Pao, to be so base as to join Wang Ch'ing-wei's regime, or shall they stick to the word "Chinese" and cancel the word "Communist"? I hope they will reply to my question.
Concerning the theory of a Second Imperialistic War, Mao himself has for two years forbidden his followers to comment, on the charge of being a Rightist, a closed-door Rightest, a childish Rightest, or a Trotskyite who is plotting with Germany. Now we see that he himself has fully adopted a Trotskyite view. In that article he used the words "progressive" and "retrogressive" to suppress any upheaval within his party; but now what he means by "progressive" is exactly "retardation"; what he formerly advocated as "progress" is now a discarded fig. He is just making a circle, like a donkey fastened to turn a grind-stone, pressed onward by whipping and kicking, and when he has turned half a circle, he may be said to have retarded half a circle.
Now Mr. Mao condemns every country as imperialistic. But we must ask, in his opinion, does he think that Poland is imperialistic? Why is the war of national defense on the part of Poland not a rightful war? Under the exactly similar conditions, why did the Communists formerly show sympathy for Abyssinia and Spain, and are now cold toward Poland? He says that Communists always hate wars; then why did he advocate the Help-Abyssinia Movement? This is a paradox. Perhaps the saying that Communists hate war is invented by Mr. Mao himself. So far as we know, the Communists in Poland, Great Britain, and France are absolutely sympathizing with the Poles in their defensive war.
There is another ridiculous point: Mr. Mao also labelled Chamberlain and Daladier as Fascist Reactionaries. Before the German-Soviet Pact, they were hailed as saints, but now they are convicts, as it were. If Mr. Mao is not satisfied with them, then condemn them as he wishes. But why must he put such a "Fascist" hat upon the oldest democratic countries? This spring, one American political commentator predicted jokingly that in the near future Hitler will say that the headquarters of the Communists are located in London and Paris, hence anti-Communist will mean anti-French. Now the direction of this pseudo-prophecy is already established, though Hitler did not give the above reason. But we did not expect that the Chinese Communists would adopt such a belief by calling democratic countries Fascist and by advocating "that we may approach Germany." This is perhaps a conclusion by their special logic.