THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday. Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska ^
----
Telephone: Main 125 P O. Box 61H,
*1.50 PER MONTH ' $16.00 A YEAH.
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER.Editors
Entered as second class matter October 14. 1943, at the postoffic**
at Nome. Alaska, under the Act of March 3. 1879.
I
Friday, August 22, 1947
Let Oimng Stew For A \\ hile i
(Bv Palmer Hoyt)
ONLY IF THE UNITED STATES keeps its hands off
China for the next few months, is there a chance that,
the world will see some real liberalization of the Chi-1
nese government.
Since Secretary Marshall’s return last winter, Amer
ica has kept from meddling. We have withdrawn most of
our forces, leaving only a military advisory group.
Now, however, it appears that the state department
has changed its mind, and decided that all we can do is
aid the Nationalists. This is presumably part of the fight
against international Communism, and the change ini
policy is becoming more and more evident.
It was first evident in the announcement that the.
United States would sell 130 million rounds of ammuni
tion to the Nationalists. This was ammunition manufac
tured for Chinese rifles during the war. With it Chiang1
Kai-Shek will be helped to stage an otherwise impossi
ble full-scale offensive against the Communists.
Second is the announcement by the Export-Import
bank that it is willing to consider loans to China, despite
expiration of the time limit on a half-billion-dollar loan
discussed more than a year ago.
Final indication was the announcement that Gen. Al
bert C. Wedemeyer would go to China to look for ways
to help Chiang. This is significant because Wedemeyer'
has definite pro-Nationalist sympathies. He took over
command of American forces in China when Gen. Jo-,
seph Stilwell was ejected by Chiang—partially because
Stilwell was more interested in winning the Pacific
war than holding the Communists, and because he de
manded that Chiang put his “holding” armies into the
field against the Japanese.
When Secretary Marshall left China six months ago,
he admitted failure of his peace mission. He had put
pressure on Chiang to liberalize his government. Chiang (
conducted a reorganization that left the Nationalist gov
ernment not a single bit broader than before. He said,
he was eliminating one-party government. The Kuomin
tang still controls Nationalist China. But at the same
time, the Communists, who refused to compromise, are
just as totalitarian as the Nationalists.
Since the end of the Pacific war, the Soviet Union has
sharply criticized American aid to the Nationalists in
the civil war. Unhappily most of these criticisms are
justified. In turn-about, the Nationalists charge that the
Russians armed and supported Chinese Communists.
There is no documentation of this. But the Russians do
continue to hold Dairen and Port Arthur, and they did
conveniently allow the Communists to enter Manchur
ia and pick up Japanese arms. In the Sino-Soviet treaty
of 1945 the Soviets promised to aid the Nationalises as
the government of China. They have consistently given
left-handed aid and support to the Communists.
Now the nonpartisan, liberal elements of China criti
cize American strong policy. Through that policy the
United States has lost much “face” in China. Before the
Pacific war, America was regarded as a big brother by
the Chinese people. Now it is regarded as the big brother
to the much-disliked Kuomintang government.
There is nothing to be gained by pretending that
money given the Nationalists would not go into the war
coffers. Much of UNRRA’s contribution ended there,
and the Nationalists will do the same with any other
money. In view of this, and in view of Chiang’s constant
default and refusal to liberalize, the United States
should pursue a hands-off policy until Chiang comes to
terms. This may appear inconsistent in view of our pol
icy in Greece, but China is neither immediately threat
GREETING THE RISNG SUN _
ened from the outside nor is its government about to
fall. If America does not interfere now, Chiang will come
to us for aid, for he is losing ground, both militarily and
politically. A hands-off policy now could mean the re
vitalization of a free China.
You Can Take It With You—from Alaska
(Alaska ^Ptgss )
WITH THE TERRITORY’S FINANCES in the red, it
is interesting to note that within a recent 24-hour peri
od something like half a million dollars in wages flew
south in the pockets of outside workers, following the
end of the Bristol Bay fishing season. Local men, re
turning to Juneau by plane this week reported a fair
season, with an average wage of approximately $2500
to $3000 for six weeks’ work, in spite of the most severe
weather experienced by oldtimers in the Bristol Bay
district in the past 50 years. Two planes landed at the
Juneau airport early Saturday morning. They carried
102 passengers, all but three of whom transferred to
Pan American and went on to Seattle. The local men re
ported that while they stopped over at Gustavus enroute
home, four other loaded planes landed there before pro
ceeding south. None of these wages are spent in Alaska,
nor are they taxed by Territorial law. Washington and
ether states will reap the benefit.
Egypt Vs. Britain — It*s Up To U. N.
(The Denver Post)
THE PROBLEM OF EGYPT and the Sudan, now be
fore the United Nations, is another manifestation of the
desire of ali peoples for independence, but it is a prob
lem that goes even deeper.
Britain first occupied Egypt in 1882 and during the
past sixty-five years has continued to control that coun
try. But while in the beginning Britain’s Egyptian policy
was similar to her other worldwide imperialistic poli
cies. it has changed, just as they all have throughout
the world.
The Egyptians now demand complete freedom. They
mean freedom from any kind of British controls, free
dom from British troops, and freedom to control the
Sudan, which they regard as their private hinterland.
They have a case, for historically the Sudan has been
tied to Egypt as closely as any two geographical areas,
and the Nile valley, life line of Egypt, runs through the
Sudan. But the Egyptians make the point that since the
Sudanese will not be ready for independence for at least
twenty years, their future should be handed over to
Egypt. In presenting their case they also refer to the
British policy of divide and rule, in explaining any dif
ferences between themselves and the Sudanese. But
there are many Sudanese who would prefer independ
ence to control by either nation.
The Egyptians charge the British with suppression of
the Sudanese voice which demands unity with Egypt,
but on the other hand left-handedly acknowledge the
desire of the Sudanese for independence. They chSrge
that the British want to maintain economic controls, and
want to maintain markets for
British goods.
These are old arguments, used
by colonies for many years. There
is muca truth in them. Neverthe
less, the British have shown their
good will in granting independence
to India, Burma and Ceylon. There
is good reason to believe that they
will grant the right of self-deter
mination to the Sudan as well.
There is no doubt as to the ne
cessity of close union between the
Sudan and Egypt for historical
and economic reasons. The British
realize that, but they also hold
that the Sudanese have the right
to choose—whether they want
complete independence, or com
plete union with Egypt.
It is for the United Nations to
determine, after close investiga
tion, but the British stand con
forms to the principles of the At
lantic Charter, which promised
self-determination to all nations,
and the Sudanese, as any other na
tional group, are entitled to that
right.
\ LOOKING
I ASEAN
Fn GEORGES BENSON •
PtctU<at~Htrilaf MV'
^B Setrtf. J/isMtm
THE MONEY MEN
Just where is all the nation’s
money? Probably we’ve all asked
that question at some time. How
ever, we don’t have to go far to
find a multitude of “experts" eager
to point out the answer—their an
swer. These might range from the
old wheeze about ‘‘90% of the
wealth in the hands of 10of the
people,” to other outdated adages
just as economically unsound.
The real answer is simple
enough. In investigating the possi
ble culprits who command the na
tion’s economy most of us fail to.
consider the most important indi
viduals—ourselves. Yet many peo
ple think only of wealth as being
controlled t*y a few. These usually
are pictured as pompous capital
ists exploiting the masses for their
own gain. A more untrue picture
c ui!d hardly exist.
Equal Shares
Actually, the distribution of the
nation’s money constitutes the most
striking arguments for freedom of
endeavor in our country. Together
with more than 50 million of his
fellow employed workers, Mr. Av
erage Citizen in 1945 took home
some 114.5 billion dollars—71.1%
of the national income. As mem
bers of the largest group they re
ceived the largest share of the
country’s money. This is the natu
ral consequence of democracy.
Wide distribution does not stop
here. In the same period 15% of
the national income went to the
proprietor class — the farmers,
small businessmen, doctors, den
tists, and other professional people.
It is difficult to think of the local
farmer, the corner grocer, or tne
family doctor as greedy exploiters.
Through their own work and
training they have provided them
selves with a livelihood.
More Sharing
The remaining 12.9% is again
distributed. Rents, interest and
dividends account for the major
part, with corporate savings
amounting to only 2.8% of the na
tional income. Included in rent in
come are large numbers of small
property owners, whose rent-bear
ing holding? might be only a home
or building. Then, too, thousands
of small stockholders account for a
good share of the interest and div*»