893.44 Chiang Kai-shek/109
Memorandum by Mr. Augustus S. Chase of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs
Reference underlying despatch no. 1220 of May 31, 1943, from our Embassy at Chungking, enclosing the original Chinese text of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s book, China’s Destiny, and a condensed translation thereof prepared by the British Embassy at Chungking (copy of which had already been received in the Department through another channel).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Page 311]Comment
The Embassy’s views in regard to the significance of the book and its anti-liberal and somewhat anti-foreign tone are believed to be well taken. It is believed, however, that foreigners, in their initial reaction to the book, have perhaps shown a tendency to view it solely in the perspective of the war and United Nations objectives and hence to overemphasize undesirable features which from a long-range viewpoint take on a more natural if not less disturbing character. In fairness the following may be pointed out:
Criticism of foreign countries, with the exception of Japan, is largely confined to the pre-war past—though it is true that an unfortunately distorted and biased picture of China’s treatment by foreign nations is drawn with the obvious purpose28 of keeping alive the impression that China’s past ills and failures were the result of the “unequal treaties”. With respect to the present and future, the sentiment toward foreign countries other than Japan and its Axis partners is friendly rather than hostile except for an assertion in Chapter VIII that European political philosophy makes mankind the slaves of the techniques of war and industrial production in contrast to China’s philosophy which regards them as servants of mankind. Even with regard to the past, criticism of the United States is limited to including us among the nations which imposed “unequal treaties”: There is no specific censure, no mention, for example, of the Nanking Incident,29 of American oil shipments to Japan, of our immigration laws, or of the “inadequacy” of our aid to China. The past encroachments of Britain and Russia are severely and specifically censured, but in both the past and present Japan is the principal target and the epithet “Japanese brigands” appears frequently. China’s new “equal treaties” with the United States and Britain are extolled at length and it is stated that their conclusion “is not only the most important page in the history of the rebirth of our Chinese people, but the friendly nations of America and England have erected a shining beacon to the equality and freedom of the world and humanity.” There are several cordial references to China’s association with the United Nations and their common objectives and at least brief passages which refute the charge that Nazism and Fascism are not attacked. While it is made clear that Outer Mongolia, Kowloon and Hong Kong should be returned to Chinese control, the approach here is friendly in tone. Sympathy for the aspirations of Asiatic peoples is expressed but without any threat or specific demands. [Page 312] Even the worst passages of the book are more moderate than propaganda issued by the Kuomintang at earlier stages of its career.
As the Embassy indicates, the book’s anti-liberal tone appears of more serious consequence than its anti-foreign aspects. Even here, however, the book is not a new iteration of policy but only an authoritative confirmation of already manifested reactionary Kuomintang views. Moreover, the basis for objection lies less in the actual statements made than in the inferences to be drawn from a background knowledge of the Kuomintang’s past conduct. Thus, one could hardly describe as reactionary the statements that all political views will be tolerated save those which seek to overthrow Kuomintang control by force, that local political and social reforms are being undertaken and have only failed of completion as a result of disturbed conditions, that the Kuomintang program calls for “equalization of land rights and limitation of capital”, and that individual freedom must be tempered with respect for the law. It is only when one realizes the past consistent failure of the Chungking Government to carry out its pledges to the people, the obstinate determination of reactionary Kuomintang elements to preserve their power and opportunities for profit, and the uncompromising attitude toward the Chinese Communists that the unfortunate significance of the book becomes evident. Even the position taken toward Western democracy is offset by well-sounding statements with which it is difficult to take issue.
In conclusion, the worst that may be said of the book is that it authoritatively reaffirms undesirable policies already expressed and that a particularly unfortunate time has been chosen for its publication. The best that can be said of it is that it is obviously intended to build up a spirit of patriotism, unity, self-respect and self-reliance among the Chinese people and that the methods used to achieve this purpose are probably no worse than those employed in nationalistic propaganda of most other countries.
- Notation by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck): “Many Chinese believe it. S. K. H.”↩
- March 24, 1927; see Foreign Relations, 1927, vol. ii, pp. 146 ff.↩