893.00/10–2246
The Ambassador in China ( Stuart ) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 22—1:43 p.m.]
1712. Chen Chia-kang, Communist spokesman [at] Shanghai, issued following statement October 20 concerning return of General Chou En-lai to Nanking and Communist position in negotiations.
“Since the occupation of Kalgan and the issuance of the mandate for the National Assembly by the government on October 11, the door [Page 398] of Peace Parley was already closed, and the prevention of a national split hangs merely by a hair. At this critical moment the mission of saving the country still rests on the Chinese ourselves. Besides the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, the other parties and nonpartisan representatives made separate attempts for seeking democracy and peace, which eventually brought a renewal of the peace negotiations. The informal talks held m Shanghai during the last 2 days are confined to a free exchange of views and exploration of the points of difference. No conclusion had been reached.
Now for a matter of convenience, the talks will be moved to Nanking on October 21. The Communist Party is as ready to save the country which is on the verge of a split as a man is ready to save his deathly sick mother. Whenever there is yet a last ray of hope, the Communists would be ready to do their utmost. But the key to success and failure as before still rests with the Government. The Communist Party is willing to join hands with the representatives of the other parties and non-partisans as well as the Chinese people in striving for this aim.
The Government representatives had in view of the actual circumstances held it difficult to accept the view expressed by the statement of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, that the cease fire order of January 10 and the restoration of positions as of January 13 should be taken as the criterion for all military discussions. With reference to this, I have the following points to make:
- Point a. It is the view of the Communist Party that the cease fire order of January 10 should be taken as the basis for the forthcoming military discussions, which would automatically include the restoration of positions of both armies as of January 13. Should the cease fire order of January 10 be thrown overboard, then not only the Committee of Three, of which General Marshall is the chairman, but also the Peiping Executive Headquarters would lose their reference.
- Point b. In accordance with article 4 and 5 of the Basis for Supplementary Agreement for Army Reorganization, which has been agreed upon by both parties in principle without being signed during the June armistice talks, in China proper position as of January 13, and in Manchuria positions as of June 7 should be restored. Thus it can be seen that even in accordance with June negotiation, the cease fire order of January 10 and the restoration of positions as of January 13 are still effective.
- Point c. Whenever the Communist troops had occupied government controlled areas, the government would demand the withdrawal of the Communist troops. But now, when the government by completely defying the cease fire order of January 10, has occupied a great number of cities and villages in the liberated areas, it demands without any basis the continued occupation of these areas, while the Communist Party has every reason to demand the restoration of positions of both parties as of January 13.
With regard to the occupation of Kalgan, it must be pointed out that the issue was thrown open by the new offensive launched by the Government troops on September 29. General Marshall by advancing [Page 399] the proposition of suspending the Kalgan drive for ten days merely attempted to force the Communists first to carry out the two conditions of the Government as of October 2. Thus the matter is too obvious to allow the Government to shirk its responsibility for the occupation of Kalgan nor could the whole affair be considered as closed.”