711.93/540
The Ambassador in China (Gauss) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 6.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a copy of a strictly confidential memorandum of conversation dated October 12, 1943,73 with Dr. Quo Tai-chi, former Chinese Ambassador to London and former Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which he expressed his views regarding recent American press criticism of China and related subjects. Dr. Quo’s remarks are of interest as representing those of an extremely keen Chinese observer who, speaking privately and without the inhibitions imposed by high public office, made frank observations of a nature which are at present very infrequently heard in high Chinese Government circles although, we understand, his opinions are shared by a number of other liberal-minded and enlightened Chinese.
Summary. Dr. Quo stated that he felt that the recent American press criticism of China has produced good results and by inference pointed to the recent indications thereof contained in the resolution on constitutional government adopted by the Plenary Session of the C. E. C. in September. He expressed opinion that the traditional and fundamental democratic traits of the Chinese people were certain to be given expression in time and that criticism by sincere friends, such as Americans, was needed both by China and by the Chinese Government to hasten the process. Dr. Quo repeated an observation previously made to the effect that there has been too much “idealization” of China in the United States and that it was far more desirable to clear the air now with American criticism of China than at a later period when a sudden and strong adverse reaction might result (Embassy’s telegram No. 999, June 23, 9 a.m. for expression of similar view). He expressed belief that some of the overpraise of China had been due to “professional friends of China” who were motivated by self-interest.
Referring to President Chiang Kai-shek’s book, China’s Destiny, Dr. Quo said that President Chiang had been ill-advised to write such a book and that it had been the subject of much criticism both from Chinese and from foreign friends of China. He felt, however, that the book represented the ideas of President Chiang in many respects notwithstanding that the book had been ghost-written. Dr. Quo expressed the opinion that President Chiang had a secure place in one of the three categories of persons described by the Chinese as “immortals” as a leader whose efforts helped build up the nation, but that it was a mistake for him to seek to achieve immortality as a philosopher and a great writer as well. (Embassy’s despatch No. 1220, May 31, 1943,74 regarding reaction of Chinese intellectuals to China’s Destiny.)
[Page 149]While there has been resentment in Kuomintang circles of the recent American press criticism of China, liberal elements here approve this criticism, feeling that it has had a beneficial effect on the Chinese Government and was largely responsible for the C. E. C. resolution on constitutional government at its Plenary Session in September. End of summary.
Approval of American press criticism of China, such as that voiced by Dr. Quo, is fairly widespread among liberal elements in China, who feel that the article by Pearl Buck in a May issue of Life to a great extent and the articles by Hanson Baldwin and T. A. Bisson in the July issue of The Far Eastern Survey to a lesser degree have had a salutory effect on the Chinese Government (Embassy’s telegrams No. 1357, August 2, 12 noon, and No. 1444, August 13, 11 a.m.). One well known non-Kuomintang Chinese close to Dr. Sun Fo has stated to an officer of the Embassy that while many Kuomintang leaders resented the articles it was generally felt in liberal circles that only “Chinese fascists” could really find fault with Pearl Buck’s article. This Chinese added that she would be doing a further service to China if she were to publish an article drawing a comparison between “Chungking democracy” and “real democracy”. Many Chinese feel, however, that the effect of the Bisson article was lessened by his statement that there existed two Chinas (a democratic China in the Communist areas and a feudalistic China in the Kuomintang areas), but they admit that while the article was less warmly received than that of Mrs. Buck it too had in general a desirable influence.
So far as the Embassy knows there was no indication of any Kuomintang intention to interest itself in the question of constitutional government in China prior to the publication of these critical articles in question. The belief is generally held by informed Chinese here that the action of the C. E. C. at its Plenary Session in September in adopting the resolution on constitutional government grew almost entirely out of a desire to meet American criticism of the lack of democracy in China (Embassy’s telegrams No. 1712, September 15, 10 a.m.75 and No. 1741, September 17, 12 noon,76 and despatch No. 1675, October 14, 194377).
The greatest resentment has been against the Baldwin article, especially the author’s use of the term “geographical expression” as applied to China—a repetition of a well known Japanese propaganda line. The Chinese military have been especially resentful of his charges against the Chinese army and according to a confidential report from the 14th U. S. Air Force the Central Government has issued orders that strict surveillance be maintained over Chinese in [Page 150] southeast China suspected of giving information to foreigners and that Chinese guilty of such acts be arrested and sent to concentration camp. His article has, however, had some desirable repercussions, for it is reliably reported that Chiang Kai-shek subsequently issued orders to commanders of Central Government troops in some areas to carry out at least one attack a month against the Japanese. There has been in recent weeks an increasing number of press reports of Chinese military engagements with the Japanese, which may have resulted from a Chinese desire for more publicity regarding Chinese military activity as well as from Japanese operations against bases which might be used by American planes for bombing of Japan. The Ministry of Information has also endeavored to refute this criticism and at a recent press conference Government spokesmen assured foreign press correspondents that China still placed victory before postwar reconstruction and desired the opening of the Burma Road in order to enable the Chinese army to be furnished the weapons necessary for “her counter-offensive against Japan” (Embassy’s despatch No. 1676, October 14, 1943).78
Some Kuomintang Chinese, resentful of the criticism, have sought to find an ulterior motive behind what they term “a sudden wave of criticism of China” from the United States. The local English language daily recently published a letter from a Japanese and American educated Chinese active in one of the National Military Council’s intelligence organs charging the American writers with “guttersnipe journalism”. These are reactions perhaps typical of the chauvinistic element in China which, long fed on American overpraise of China, cannot now accept any criticism as being well intentioned or justified. Many liberal Chinese, however, apparently feel that the United States represents the major external force which can exert influence on the Chinese scene toward the establishment of a democratic China. They suspect that Great Britain under its present leadership gives primary consideration to its position in the Far East, that the absence of British press criticism of China is not purely accidental and that the British Government feels no concern for the spread of democratic principles in China. They are of the opinion that if China is to have a liberal democratic form of government the encouragement and impetus from without can come only from the United States, and they thus derive a quiet satisfaction from American criticism of many of the present-day fascist trends in this country.
Respectfully yours,