Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1945, The Far East, China, Volume VII

893.00/4–245

Transcript of Press and Radio News Conference by the Ambassador in China (Hurley)⁸⁶

[Washington,] April 2, 1945.

Ambassador Hurley: Well, I am happy to meet the press in Washington. While I have spoken to the Overseas Club and the Press Club several times off the record, this is the first time in about three years that I have spoken to the press for publication; that is, for publication in so far as the Press Section of the State Department will let it go through because I have not conferred with them about what I am saying and they might find something objectionable, or other parts of the country.

In the first place, I would like to begin by saying to the press that my overall impression in China is that China is very friendly to the United States. The Chinese are grateful to America for all the assistance that we have given them. After eight years of war, the Chinese are tired, bruised and bleeding but in my opinion, China will fight on to a victorious finish.

The second subject that I would like to speak to you about is the efforts in which we have participated for the unification of the military forces in China. We have endeavored to use what influence we possess to point the way toward a unification of military forces that would enable China to bring the full military power of China to the task of defeating Japan. There has been some progress along those lines. We still expect more favorable results. It must be apparent to everyone familiar with the Chinese scene that there can be no political unification in China as long as there are armed political parties and war lords who are still strong enough to defy the national government. In saying this, I would like to add that in my opinion, the military strength of the armed political parties and the war lords has been overestimated in the United States. The strongest military force in China, stronger than all the war lords and armed political parties is still the national government of China. The Chinese military establishment, the American military establishment, the Chinese National Government and the American Embassy at Chungking are now all one team with one objective—the defeat of Japan. The Americans and the Chinese are cooperating excellently.

Someone has asked me about the character and the aspirations of Chiang Kai-shek. My impression is that during China’s long war against Japan, Chiang Kai-shek has exercised all the power available to him. Notwithstanding this, he is not fascist-minded. His ambition is to relinquish all the power he possesses to a government of the people, for the people, of the people, by the people and for the people. He is at the present time taking steps to formulate a foundation for a government based on democratic principles in China. He considers the establishment of a democratic government in China the real objective of his career. I think now that I had better discontinue and let you gentlemen ask me any questions you may decide.

Q. Mr. Ambassador, you spoke about the force of the war lords. What war lords or factions did you have in mind?

A. Well, I have in mind—you mean armed party not armed factions?

Q. Yes.

A. I mean Communists and some of the war lords in the southern part of China.

Q. You said, Sir, that the strength of some of these smaller groups had been overestimated in that country. Could you yourself give us any estimate of the Chinese Communist forces?

A. I think it would be improper for me at this time to attempt to give an estimate of the military strength of the Communist Party. That might be more properly given by the military authorities.

Q. Referring to the war lords, General, did you observe any war lords supporting Chiang Kai-shek?

A. Yes, the war lord who had control of the forces in the vicinity of Kunming has, I understand, recently subscribed allegiance, possibly not to Chiang Kai-shek, but to the Nationalist Government of China.

Q. Mr. Ambassador, some weeks ago, I remember a dispatch appearing in the New York Times from Chungking, I believe, or some other place in China, which said that the Chinese Communists were asking the United States to let them have some of the captured arms—arms captured from the Japanese, now in American possession so that they could do a better job of fighting the Japanese. Sir, I wonder if you can either confirm that report of that request, or indicate the attitude of this Government toward that request, or both?

A. Well, of course I could not affirm or deny the press report. I don’t know what it is based upon. I do not know that the Communist Party has requested that the United States furnish arms to it as a political party. It has been my opinion and I have so stated that the furnishing of arms to an armed political party would be equivalent to the recognition of a belligerant. We—this nation, as you know, has recognized the National Government of China as the government of China and we have steadfastly supported economically, militarily and politically the National Government of China since Secretary Cordell Hull wrote his note of, I believe it was November 26, 1941,⁸⁷ a few days before the attack at Pearl Harbor, to the Japanese national representatives. That policy, in my opinion, has been upheld in our mutual aid pact with the Chinese Government and in various other expressions of policies of the State Department, so that we do recognize the National Government of China and not any armed war lords or armed political parties in China.

Q. Mr. Ambassador, can you say anything about your view of the role, if any, played by Moscow in that relationship to the Communist and Chungking government?

A. Well, on that subject, I would prefer to let the Soviet Government speak for itself, although I would say this: that in my conferences in Moscow, the attitude of Russia toward China has been universally fair. Russia has expressed the desire for closer and more harmonious relations with China. I would rather not go into the details concerning the Communist Party in China. You gentlemen should know though—I believe you all do know, that it is a matter of common knowledge that the Communist Party of China supports the principles of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen. That was generally referred to as the three people’s principles of China. The three principles are government of the people, by the people and for the people. All the demands that the Communist Party has been making have been on a democratic basis. That has led to the statement that the Communist Party in China are not, in fact real Communists. The Communist Party of China is supporting exactly the same principles as those promulgated by the National Government of China and conceded to be objectives also of the National Government.

Q. Sir, I am not sure that I understood that last sentence. You said the Communist Party is supporting the same principles as the National Government of China.

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell us what is the divergence between them? How do they differ?

A. Well, as a matter of fact, the divergence between the parties in China seems to be not in the objective desired because they both assert that they are for the establishment of a government in China that will decentralize authority and conduct itself along democratic lines, employing democratic processes. The divergence between them is the procedure by which they can be achieved. To go a little further, the Communist Party would like for the National Government to inaugurate certain reforms immediately and to do this, they have suggested a bipartisan coalition government. The National Government, that is, the Kuomintang Party, has stated that it has a program outlined by the liberator of China, Dr. Sun Yat-sen whereby the authority of the government of China is to be returned to the people of China under a constitution and not to an aggregation of political parties. The National Government of China contends that it is now in the process of a meeting being held on the 5th of next month, a program whereby it will return control of the government to the people. The National Government claims that it would not be justified in turning over the authority of government to any organizations or political parties, or any coalition of politicians but that it is the attitude of the National Government to return the control of China to the people and let the people select their own leaders.

Q. General, what is the real difference between the Chinese Communists in China and the Communists in America, Britain and elsewhere?

A. Well, I know the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in Oklahoma but you are getting too deep for me when you are trying to make me outline the difference between foreign political parties. I do have opinions on that subject but I don’t believe that that is a debate I wish to enter into.

Q. Sir, can you say something of the kind of favorable development in the future which you anticipate?

A. Well, I don’t mind telling you that. You will recall that we, ourselves, had a number of conflicts between our military establishment and the Chinese military establishment. These have been eliminated. We had ourselves a number of conflicts concerning certain members of the Chinese Cabinet. These have been eliminated. New persons have been appointed to important Cabinet posts. Now, the results we expect will come when the Chinese National Government will recognize all of the political parties. For instance, by appointing members from the different parties as delegates to something like the San Francisco Conference. Those are the developments that we are looking for. We believe that the armed parties in China are coming close together and that all of them realize that there can not emerge from this war a free, strong, united, democratic China as long as there are armed forces other than the government which are strong enough to defy the government. I say I believe these facts are recognized now and while I would not want you gentlemen to go away with the idea that I have any Utopian plans because from my childhood until the present time, I have had to be a realist and I am expecting men to operate according to the characteristics of human beings. Consequently, I don’t expect a Utopia in China overnight any more than you gentlemen expect one in any other part of the world. This is a serious situation but China is working toward a unification of the military forces of China for the purpose of defeating Japan and the unification of the military forces will assist in the political unification of China.

Q. General, I think a few days ago there was a dispatch from Chungking that a Communist had been appointed to the San Francisco delegation. Do you think that the appointment of a Communist satisfies the government of Yunan [Yenan]?

A. The answer to that would be, in a measure. It is a recognition of the Communist Party of China by the National Government. The Communist Party of China would, no doubt, desire more than one representative and possibly several assistants. Now, on that, just remember that while the Republican Party in the United States is very well satisfied with its representatives to the San Francisco Conference, usually we have not been very well satisfied with anything that the Democratic Party has done and you find that is true in China. The Communist Party will not concede that the Kuomintang Party is right, completely right about anything but I do say that is a step in the right direction and it is an indication that there is a possibility of unification of the armed forces of China, as well as political unification of the objectives of China.

Q. Mr. Ambassador, assuming that that unification could take place before the 25th of April, do you think it is to be expected there may be some difficulties in accomplishing a working arrangement during that conference between the Soviet and Chinese delegations with them participating, in view of the fact that it was not possible last summer to arrange it on the basis of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference?

A. Now, Leon, getting over on the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, you see I am not in that league yet. I am still in the bush league but about differences between the Chinese political parties, I would answer, yes, there will be about as many differences between them as there will be between the various delegations at San Francisco. I don’t expect complete harmony any place and it is wrong for us to expect more out of China than we do from other parts of the world. I might add this: that there was a time when China was praised inordinately in this nation. Everybody said very wonderful things about China. There then came a time when everybody condemned everything in China. I think that neither of those attitudes is correct. It is someplace in between the two of them.

Q. Is this Communist delegate who has been appointed to the Chinese delegation really a Communist as far as you know?

A. I think he is. I do know that he was their representative at Chungking and that he is now in Yunan [Yenan] and I have had many conferences with him. Now, to say whether he is a real Communist as you understand Communism, I would not say that. I don’t know because there is a question whether any of the Chinese Communists are real Communists, but I do say this: that he does belong to the Communist Party and does cooperate with and serve that Party. Now, to determine what is the degree of Communism and what kind of Communism it is, I could not give you a definition of that.

Q. Mr. Ambassador, before we leave, would you mind answering a personal question? Do you expect to be at San Francisco?

A. The answer to that is off the record—this is personal, no. I think possibly you will find that the Ambassadors of the various nations will be at their posts while this is going on because there might-be some work they have to do.

86. Notation on the original: “Not for the Press. For Departmental use only.
87. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, pp. 766 and 768.