893.00/10–546: Telegram

The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State

1601. The two questions posed in Deptel 803, September 27, 8 p.m.74 will be answered in separate telegrams.

Question No. 1: Original positions significant changes of position and most recent stands of Kmt,75 CCP76 and other political elements regarding number of seats to be assigned each in State Council and regarding number of votes necessary to exercise veto.

Answer No. 1: PCC agreements77 (Embtel 201, Feb. 178) provided for State Council of 40 members, 20 of whom would be Kmt and balance from other political parties and groups. Agreements provided that “the exact number from other political parties and prominent social leaders who are to serve as State Councilors will form the subject of separate discussions.” At time of breakdown of PCC Steering Committee meetings on April 9, (Embtel 655, April 1079) no final decision on this question was reached between non-Kmt groups and this problem was to be subject for discussion by “Five Man Committee” proposed by me. (Embdes 33, August 780.)

During March official news releases and editorial discussion of PCC agreements in vernacular press suggested that Government might assert right to nominate all members of State Council in view of PCC provision that “the State Council will be chosen by the President of the National Government from among the Kmt members as well as non-members of the Kmt.” At PCC Steering Committee Meeting on March 20, however, it was agreed (Embtel 541, March 2181) that Central Executive Committee of Kmt would nominate only Kmt members of State Council and that other members would be nominated by their respective parties and, in the case of non-party membership, nomination was to be by Gmo.82 This agreement, perhaps better referred to as an “understanding”, was in accord with section of PCC agreements which states that “the appointment of State Councilors by the President of the National Government will be made on the nomination of the different parties concerned.” This supplementary understanding has not been published, but it seems clearly [Page 294] established that the Govt now considers the selection of non-Kmt State Councilors will be by each party concerned.

As to question of allocation of seats, as between several parties or groups, at time of last PCC Steering Committee Meeting Government was advocating that non-Kmt membership be divided as follows: Communists, 8; Democratic League, 4; Youth Party, 4; non-party groups, 4.

[It is?] anticipated that the Government will oppose a division of membership that will give the Communist-Democratic League bloc a clear-cut veto power in the State Council. It is the Government’s contention that control of 14 votes by the Communists and Democratic League would confer upon the Communists a permanent and un-warranted power for obstructionism. It seems probable that any Government move to defeat the establishment of veto power by a Communist-Democratic League bloc will take the form of Government support of Youth Party aspirations for greater representation in the State Council or to oppose any move that would reduce Youth Party or non-party representation in order to increase that of the Communists.

For their part the Communists maintain that in conjunction with the Democratic League they must have a total of 14 seats in order to protect the entire PCC structure inasmuch as the PCC agreements provide that “if a resolution before the State Council should involve changes in administrative policy, it must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the State Councilors present.” It is the Communist contention that otherwise the entire PCC program would be vulnerable inasmuch as they consider the Youth Party a creature of the Kmt and assume that the non-party members, appointed by the Gmo, will tend to side with the Kmt.

Attitude[s] of parties and groups other than Kmt and Communists have not been and are not definitely important at this time. Agreement between Kmt and Communists is basic requirement at the present time. If such agreement can be achieved and civil liberties enumerated by PCC agreements placed in practical effect, it may be hoped that other parties and groups, freed from the necessity of attaching themselves to either of the most powerful factions, may affect positive [apparently garbled] overall political scene by establishing a middle ground between totalitarianism of the right and the left.

At the moment the Communists, suffering serious military reverses, place the greatest emphasis on a nation-wide cease-fire agreement. Conversely the Kmt, savoring military success, is reluctant to lose by armistice the impetus of its present offensives.

In answering Communist position announced by General Chou [Page 295] En-lai on October 1 (Embtel 1572, Oct 2, 11 a.m.83 and Embtel 1579, Oct 3, 3 p.m.) Ministry of Information on Oct 2 announced inter alia that the Government was willing to consider the nomination of a non-party State Councilor by the Communists, which would in effect give Communists 9 seats on State Council or total of 13 seats for Communist-Democratic League bloc. (Embtel 1580 of October 3.)

Stuart
  1. Ante, p. 237.
  2. Kuomintang.
  3. Chinese Communist Party.
  4. For texts, see United States Relations With China, pp. 610–621.
  5. Not printed.
  6. Vol. ix, p. 167.
  7. Ibid., p. 1465.
  8. Ibid., p. 158.
  9. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
  10. Not printed.