by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
As the dust slowly settles after the worldwide focus on President Nixon’s trip to China, a series of discontentment in the United States begins to surface.
I am noting here facts that, I believe, mostly have not been brought to the attention of the Brazilian public.
Leading right-wing figures and organizations took to the streets and organized nationwide protests against Nixon’s trip. A key aspect of these efforts is that they explicitly or subtly emphasize that Nixon’s trip not only signifies a surrender by the United States in the Far East but also promotes a foolishly pacifist dialogue with communist superpowers and their puppet republics around the world.
Here are some of the key statements and campaigns:
At a rally with about 30,000 people in an Atlanta stadium, Alabama’s Governor George Wallace declared that America would know how to defend itself against its president, who wants to hand the country over to the Chinese. Wallace received a standing ovation from the audience (quoted in the John Birch Society Circular, August 1971).
Regarding the current administration’s foreign policy, California Governor Ronald Reagan, a Republican who had supported Nixon, stated, “Now true Republicans have no one to support” (Review of the News, Belmont, Massachusetts, August 18, 1971).
Barry Goldwater and other senators and representatives considered to be on the right started delivering fiery speeches in the Senate and House against Nixon and his dialogue with China (Review of the News, August 11, 1971).
A delegation of 16 senators and representatives headed to Taipei to show their support for Chiang Kai-shek (China News, Taiwan’s government bulletin, August 1971).
The US Senate Internal Security Subcommittee released data on the victims of Chinese communism. The report, prepared by the Institute of International Studies at the University of South Carolina and published shortly after President Nixon’s trip to Beijing was announced, estimates that 34 to 36 million Chinese people were killed directly because of communism in China (Folha de S. Paulo, August 13, 1971).
The Manchester Union Leader, New Hampshire’s top Republican newspaper run by Nixon’s personal friend William Loeb, called the president’s trip to China “immoral, indecent, and insane” and warned it “poses an enormous danger to the survival of the United States” (August 6, 1971 edition).
The Scripps-Howard newspaper chain reported that most of the letters they received about Nixon’s trip to China were opposed to it (article by Prof. Medford Evans in Review of the News, August 18, 1971).
Well-known Catholic writer Fr. Stephen Dunker, C.M., who spent several years imprisoned in China, gave a press conference in Boston, saying that he has been studying the Chinese political situation for twenty years and can therefore affirm that Nixon’s policy is extremely dangerous and will likely serve to encourage the oligarchy oppressing that country. “Nixon said he can no longer ignore the 700 million Chinese. Very well. But who has shown the president that those 700 million Chinese support Mao Tse-Tung’s bloody dictatorship? I can prove the opposite,” concluded the priest (Press release from the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, July 1971).
Medford Evans, a writer specializing in communist issues, summarized his opposition to Nixon’s trip in The Review of the News’ article as follows:
We have fought in the Vietnam War all these years (and I cite the war only to mention the most obvious example) for no other reason than to resist communist aggression in Southeast Asia. We fought in Korea for exactly the same reason. Today, the government of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai is no less communist, nor has it shown itself to be any less aggressive than before; quite the contrary, its challenges are more explicit than ever. And yet today, our president is making an overture in which he begs our most declared—and unrepentant—enemy to accept his friendship.[1]
A group of conservative American figures published a manifesto in the country’s leading newspapers, breaking with the president for his “opening to communist China, made in the absence of any concession from that country to the Western cause.” The manifesto also refers to the deterioration of American military strength and Nixon’s failure to respond adequately to the Soviet challenge in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The signatories also declare themselves opposed to the United States’ rapprochement with the communist nations of Europe. Finally, they conclude by stating that they are in contact with numerous other people who oppose the president’s policy and that “a series of consultations will be initiated to outline the means of effectively asserting their protests.”
Other signatories of the manifesto include the Conservative Party, the Southern Industrial Council, William Buckley and the staff of National Review, the well-known writer Frank Meyer, the distinguished Fr. Daniel Lyons, SJ, editor of the Catholic newspaper Twin Circle, and the editors of ten newspapers across the country’s interior (The Review of the News, August 11, 1971).
The conservative university group Young Americans for Freedom has begun a “civic vigil” outside the White House, which will continue until Nixon’s trip to China. Groups of young people are taking 24-hour shifts carrying posters with slogans like “Nixon go home, not to China.” Residents living near the White House have been sending food and drinks to the young people participating in the vigil. The organization is distributing one million copies of a manifesto against Nixon’s foreign policy by conservative figures to universities and schools (Twin Circle, Denver, Colorado, July 25, 1971).
The John Birch Society has launched two simultaneous campaigns: 1) A massive petition against Nixon’s trip to China and against all U.S. trade with communist countries (the organization hopes to collect at least two million signatures in a month); 2) Public pressure on the press, senators, representatives, and the president to oppose the trip. The John Birch Society is urging as many people as possible to write or telegram President Nixon, as well as senators and representatives, and newspapers and magazines, requesting that the trip not take place (August 1971 Newsletter).
The Washington newspaper Human Events is publishing a series of articles about how Mao gained control of China through a series of betrayals (The Review of the News, August 18, 1971).
The magazine American Opinion, published in Belmont, Massachusetts (July 1971), featured a compelling report from the Australian newspaper The Sidney Sun about a group of English businessmen who visited China. This report describes the unimaginable violence and barbarities the communists have inflicted upon the Chinese people.
The Liberty Lobby, a right-wing political organization, published a “white paper” on the atrocities committed by the Chinese communist regime. The entity’s magazine, Liberty Lowdown, edited by reserve officers, published an editorial against the trip (July 1971 issue).
The powerful American trade union federation AFL-CIO criticized Nixon for his trip to China, calling it “a publicity stunt that will produce nothing good.” It also condemns China’s entry into the UN, describing it as “a dictatorship that has deprived the people of all freedoms.”
Other organizations and publications that spoke out against the trip include the Conservative Party of New York, the American Conservative Union (influential in the South), Battle Line magazine, and the Free Asia Association.
As events like these spread across America’s vast landmass, the number of demonstrations supporting Nixon’s trip decreases, diminishes, and ages. As the dust from early propaganda settles, the noise of protests is growing.
[1] https://archive.org/details/peking-review-1971-35-Nixon-NEP.