⚓ Welcome to Tidal Echoes

Series: “Youth Speaks Its Mind” (A republication of our hometown newspaper, The Suffolk County News, from 65 years ago)

Our history isn't just a timeline; it's a series of waves that shape who we are today. In this series, we revisit the bold voices of Sayville’s past. Today, we listen to Michael Roberts as he navigates the complex diplomacy between the U.S. and Red China in 1961.

Originally published in The Suffolk County News on April 20th, 1961. Transcribed for the Sayville Alumni Association.

Diplomatic Recognition and the Reality of China

By Michael Roberts, Sayville High School

A few weeks ago the United States, encouraged by the release of the two pilots of the RB-4 aircraft by Russia, entered into negotiations with China for the release of five Americans held by that country. Because the United States does not recognize Red China, the negotiations are proceeding in Warsaw between the ambassadors of these two nations to Poland. Wouldn't it be simpler for the negotiations concerning this and other problems to proceed directly between representatives of the two governments in either Peiping or Washington?

Many other advantages besides the increased case of negotiating mutual problems would come from the establishment of diplomatic relations with China. The existence of an American embassy in Peiping would give this country an opportunity to become much better informed of internal Chinese conditions than it is at the present time. Information about China could be gathered first hand, thus reducing the present dependence upon official Chinese statements and propaganda.

Why then does the United States, in spite of the obvious practical advantages that would result from the establishment of diplomatic relations with Red China, continue to pursue the present policy of non-recognition? The following rather lame excuse for pursuing this policy is offered by supporters who maintain that Red China is pursuing certain objectives which are incompatible with the contemporary standards of international morals and with the Western concepts of the proper manner in which a nation should conduct its internal affairs. I do not deny the truth of the statements offered in support of the above supposition but I maintain that this excuse is invalid because it assumes an incorrect definition of the meaning of diplomatic recognition.

Recognizing a country diplomatically means simply acknowledging its existence. Recognition does not imply agreement with that country's policies, domestic or foreign. It does not even imply tacit approval of its actions, whatever they may be. In Prime Minister Nehru's (of India) cogent words: “Diplomatic courtesies imply no approval of the way a land is ruled. If they did, Great Britain need never have recognized the independence of the American colonies. In recognizing their independence, the British were not viewing the matter with enthusiasm. They were merely recognizing a fact.”

If endorsement of a nation's policies were implied by diplomatic recognition, the United States would then be condoning the conduct and principles of government of such nations as Paraguay, Spain, Portugal, the Dominican Republic, Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia. I do not believe that this country, by the recognition of these powers, does or did intend to intimate a sanction of their policies. Since it is quite evident that the Communists are, for better or for worse, in secure control of China, it is high time that the United States recognize this fact and take appropriate action by recognizing the Communist Chinese government.

⚓ Cast Your Thoughts

How do these words from 1961 land today? Reflecting on Michael Roberts's insights:

• michael mentions the release of rb-4 pilots—a huge international headline at the time. do you remember the "cold war" atmosphere in sayville schools that week?
• he notes that "recognition is just acknowledging a fact"—do you think his perspective was common among students, or was he taking a controversial stand for 1961?
• michael's argument that "recognition is just acknowledging a fact" was quite bold for the era. how do his views on diplomacy compare to the discussions you recall having as students?