893.00/1–147: Telegram

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

4. Following are Chou En-lai’s52 comments on President Truman’s statement,53 National Assembly, and future of Kuomintang–Communist negotiations made in Yenan on December 28.

“Question: What is the purpose behind President Truman’s statement on December 16 [18]?

Answer: President Truman’s statement is mainly an apology for United States Government’s reactionary policy toward China since March of this year. It contains nothing new. His purpose is to use such apology to blindfold the public opinion at home and abroad and block embarrassing criticisms from all quarters that reactionary policy toward China can continue without a change. This will enable American mediator to remain in China in talk of so-called ‘extreme willingness to help China to attain peace and real democratic government’. The American Government can also on the other hand unscrupulously help Chiang Kai-shek’s54 Government, so Chiang Kaishek can have a free hand if waging civil war and American Government can accelerate the process of reducing China into a colony and dependency of America. This statement of President Truman obviously does not represent the true American public opinion. On the contrary it conflicts with the true American public opinion. The joint declaration made by Republican Senator Flanders, Democratic Senator Murray and four famous American experts on [Page 673] China55 before President Truman’s speech represents the fairminded public opinion of the American people.

Question: Does the policy of the United States Government toward China during the past year accord with the declaration of Big Three Foreign Ministers in Moscow?56

Answer: The United States Government policy toward China since March this year not only does not accord with, but is in flagrant violation to principles expressed in the declaration of the Big Three Moscow Conference and President Truman’s statement. The Kmt57 Communist cease fire agreement,58 the five resolutions of the Political Consultative Conference59 and the plan for the national reorganization of the armies60 agreed upon in January and February accord with these principles. General George Marshall at that time really did his utmost to mediate and further these agreements. The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people still support the line of these resolutions even after they were torn up by Chiang Kai-shek’s Government. We insist on the cessation of hostilities throughout the country according to the position of both armies when the January 13 cease fire order was issued. We still stand by the PCC line in not recognizing Kmt-controlled illegal, nation-splitting ‘National Assembly’ and any form of ‘constitution’ passed by it.

The declaration of the Big Three Moscow Conference in December last year, the principles of President Truman’s statement of last year61 toward China and even the recent statement of President Truman all call for the cessation of internal strife broadening the basis of the Government so that democratic elements can be included in all branches of the Government, establishment of a democratized and unified country, guarantee in concert the policy of non-intervention in Chinese internal affairs and the assurance that ‘only when China is travelling along this road’ will the United States render economic and other aids. But facts of the past year demonstrate that policy of both America and Chiang Kai-shek is just the reverse of these principles.

With regard to the cessation of hostilities throughout the country Chiang Kai-shek never abided by the truce agreement nor ceased the [Page 674] hostilities in Manchuria even in January and February. The Kmt, the Communist Party, and the United States again specially concluded an agreement for the cessation of hostilities in Manchuria on March 27.62 Chiang Kai-shek’s Government again violated this agreement. It did not permit truce teams to go to areas of hostilities to carry out cease fire order but instead brought about large-scale fighting in Manchuria. Large-scale hostilities further extended to the south of the Great Wall after June and continued up to the present time. Armies of Chiang Kai-shek’s Government have invaded all Communist-led liberated areas. Since January they have seized 183 towns in the liberated areas. They of course paid a great price. Since July alone, they have lost around 45 brigades (formerly called division) or nearly one-fifth of Chiang Kai-shek’s total military strength. For this civil war of unprecedented scale Chiang Kai-shek has already mobilized 88% of his total military strength—about 218 brigades—to attack the liberated areas.

The January truce agreement has long since been thoroughly torn up by him. The United States Government and its special envoy mediator did not raise a single word against this but instead abandoned their stand of January truce agreement and refused to restore peace by restoring position of both sides according to January 13 cease fire agreement. Is this not clear that the United States and Chiang Kai-shek are working hand in glove to give free rein to large-scale hostilities. Where is any intention of ‘ending the internal strife’?

With regard to the United States forces stationed in China, their principal task, according to President Truman, is to assist China to receive Japanese surrender and to repatriate the Japanese war prisoners. In fact, these are only pretexts. Transportation of Chiang Kai-shek’s troops to north and central China by American force to receive surrender resulted in large-scale civil war since last winter. It is obvious that all intention is to assist Chiang Kai-shek to bring about the civil war situation, and then pretend for mediation.

The work of repatriating the Japanese war prisoners does not need a large-scale force and has not released all Japanese from China. Those lifted homeward are none other than Japanese plunderers taking task of attacking the liberated areas among Yen Hsi-shan’s63 troops and other Kuomintang troops. One Japanese war criminal stated that Commander in Chief of ex-Japanese expeditionary forces in China, Okamura, not only has not been brought to justice but is being well treated by Chiang Kai-shek Government.

[Page 675]

For more than 1 year the American Navy has been on the rampart along China coast, while American armies encroached on various places in north China. There were nearly 30 attacks and encroachments on liberated areas along the Peiping–Mukden Railway by the American forces between October last year and July this year. These military operations in which they coordinated with Chiang Kai-shek’s troops were not only intervention in Chinese internal affairs but participation in Chinese internal strife.

During the past year, the American aid to China was rendered at a time when Chiang Kai-shek’s Government insisted on civil war and dictatorship and had not finally headed for peace and democracy. President Truman in his recent statement could not help admitting that the agreements reached last January and February have not been carried out and China has not yet attained peace and a truly democratic government. Yet it was under such circumstances that American Government rendered unprecedented large-scale aid to Chiang Kai-shek’s Government. The Navy and Air Forces of the United States Government transported Chiang Kai-shek’s Government troops to Manchuria, north China and central China not only before January cease fire order but also violated the cease fire agreement by transporting 9 armies to enlarge the civil war after the issuance of the cease fire order. It was stipulated that 39 divisions would be equipped during the anti-Japanese war, but only 20 divisions were equipped before V–J Day. After the Japanese surrender, equipping not only has not been dropped, but was extended to 45 divisions. Lend-lease materials reached a grand total of 1,500,000,000 US dollars. Last June when Kuomintang–Communist negotiations were most tense, the United States Government again proposed to the Congress a 10 years’ extension of Lend-Lease to China Act. In addition, it presented 271 war vessels to Chiang Kai-shek in order to abet Chiang’s decision of daring to break up negotiations. The surplus property agreement64 involving transfer of 855 million US dollars worth of surplus property was signed at a time when China was engaged in large-scale hostilities. This deal includes transfer of war planes, military vehicles, communication equipment and all daily necessities for army, for this property is precisely military surplus property.

The American loans to China during the war of resistance already reached 750 million US dollars. After war another 66 million US dollars were added. Therefore Chiang Kai-shek’s Government has now 300 million US dollars deposits in the United States and negotiations with the United States Government are now underway to purchase [Page 676] ammunition with these deposits. If another new loan of 500 million US dollars is rendered and Chiang Kai-shek Government receives this encouragement, the civil war will undoubtedly continue for a long time in China.

From most reliable but incomplete data, it can be seen that the material aid received by Chiang Kai-shek’s Government from the United States have exceeded 3,600,000,000 US dollars worth. All this aid however is directly or indirectly used in civil war and therefore can never be instrumental to economic recovery of China. There are also thousands upon thousands of victims of American made arms and ammunition who but 1 year ago were elated and animated by President Truman’s statement and Marshall’s mission to China.

Aim of the barefaced policy of the United States Government aiding Chiang to wage civil war is to force Chinese people into suppression and transform China entirely into a dependency of the United States. From recently concluded Sino-American ‘treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation’,65 Sino-American air agreement,66 the agreement on United States military advisory group67 and various kinds of military training it can be proved that the action of Chiang Kai-shek’s Government in selling out the state sovereignty and national interests fits with the policy of the United States Government—assisting Chiang Kai-shek to wage the civil war. However hard Truman has argued that the United States is avoiding involvement in civil strife of China, the fact reveals that he is already maker and inspirer of the civil strife. His statement that he is still willing to assist China to carry out economic recovery is only finding a pretext for the United States Government to continue its policy of assisting Chiang Kai-shek to wage civil war by extending loans. The reactionary policy of the United States Government cannot but arouse the greatest indignant and resolute resistance of the Chinese people and cannot but be detrimental to the traditional friendship between the Chinese and American peoples. It cannot but arouse the serious attention of all countries concerned.

Question: Who in your analysis is responsible for breaking up the Kuomintang—Communist negotiations during the past year? Question: Have United States mediators been impartial or not?

Answer: The Kmt authorities were obviously responsible for breaking up the Kuomintang-Communist negotiations during the past year. The January 13th cease fire agreement and the PCC decisions [Page 677] are fundamental agreements for the cessation of civil strife and the realization of democracy in China. The Chinese Communist Party is now willing to continue the struggle for the PCC line and the restoration of the military positions held by both sides at the time of January 13th cease fire order. The Kmt has, however, not only torn up these agreements, refused to restore the military positions of both sides according to the January cease fire order, and refused to implement the PCC decisions according to schedule, it has also attempted to eliminate the Communist-led liberated areas by continuing its deep penetration into the liberated areas and split the national unity by declaring as legal the Kmt hand-picked illegal ‘National Assembly’ and ‘constitution’ which was totally not agreed upon by the Political Consultative Conference of all parties and groups. Such action of Chiang Kai-shek’s Government has not only caused breaking up of Kmt–Communist negotiations, but even has made peace negotiation impossible. But Truman’s statement did not mention a single word about this, and on the contrary only charged the Chinese Communuist Party with the occupation of Changchun and breaking up of positive negotiations. In fact the occupation of Changchun by Communistled troops was a defensive action fixed upon them under following circumstances. Chiang Kai-shek’s troops had already broken the Manchuria cease fire agreement of March 27th, seized many cities from the joint democratic army of Manchurian people and fiercely attacked Ssepingkai. The positive negotiations such as June cease fire consultations, July 5-man conference, Ambassador Stuart’s mediation in August, proposal for halting attack on Kalgan in September, and Third Party’s mediation in October were swept away by a series of new demands on part of Chiang Kai-shek Government. And finally Chiang’s Government closed door on negotiations by calling its illegal ‘National Assembly’ for national split.

Answers to the question about the attitude of the United States mediators can be found in these talks. Collaboration between Chiang Kai-shek and the United States to destroy the cease fire agreement and the PCC line became clearer and clearer with passing days.

Question: Inasmuch as the ‘National Assembly’ of Chiang Kaishek’s Government has already been held, is ‘constitution” passed by it valid?

Answer: The ‘National Assembly’ and the ‘constitution’ of Chiang Kai-shek Government were not arrived at through unanimous agreement of PCC. The ‘National Assembly’ [apparent omission] of the ‘constitution’. Therefore, in spite of the fact that this so-called ‘National Assembly’ has already been held and a so-called constitution passed, their nature is still that of a ‘Chiang Kai-shek’s National Assembly’ and ‘Chiang Kai-shek’s constitution’. We and the democrats [Page 678] of the whole country will determinedly not recognize them as legal and valid.

The original National Assembly provided for in PCC decisions was a National Assembly of all parties and groups in the nation and not elected through universal suffrage. But especially noteworthy is the fact that the so-called National Assembly representatives who retain seats in the present assembly were hand picked by Kmt dictatorship 10 years ago. Now that Chiang Kai-shek’s Government has held its illegal one-party controlled national split assembly based on these some 950 so-called assembly representatives, a new National Assembly of all parties and groups really corresponding to the PCC decisions will be convened in the face of a peoples’ victory, regardless of how the Young China Party and the Democratic-Socialists violated the PCC decisions, and shout plaudits for Chiang’s ‘National Assembly.’

When Chiang’s National Assembly was called, we advocated that it should not be held. During its sessions we advocated its dissolution. Now that it has been held, we advocate its nullification and the convening of a new National Assembly. Chiang Kai-shek’s fake constitution can only be regarded in the same light as ‘Tientang’ constitution (passed by Yuan Shih-kai’s68 Assembly in Peiping with the purpose of crowning himself emperor) and Tsao Kun’s69 constitution, which was put through by ‘buying elections’. (Tsao Kun is a northern war-lord who set up an [his?] own Diet [parliamentary?] electoral regime in the north.[)] These declarations in their constitutions announced things they never meant to carry out and the people never recognized these ‘constitutions’.

Question: But what do you think of future of the Kmt–Communist negotiations?

Answer: Chiang Kai-shek’s Government closed the door on negotiations with the same hand that convened the National Assembly. If Chiang Kai-shek’s government wants to renew negotiations, it must: (1) Cease hostilities by recognizing and restoring positions of both sides on January 13th according to the cease fire order. (2) In accordance with the PCC line, nullify the illegal National Assembly and fake constitution and reconvene a conference of all parties and groups to consult on all matters. Otherwise if Chiang Kai-shek after closing of its National Assembly comes up to play some farce of reorganizing the Govt and at the same time continues the attacks on the liberated areas and actively prepares offensive on Yenan and Harbin, then the deceptive nature of his farce of ‘reorganization of govt’ will be exposed same as the National Assembly, which has just been held. Its aim obviously is to suit design of the United States [Page 679] Government and deceive the American public opinion so that the United States Government will have a pretext transferring the 500 million American dollars loan and rendering further aid for augmenting China’s civil war and slaughtering Chinese people. We and the Chinese people will certainly not again be deceived by this design of the American-Chiang collaboration. We are determined to oppose this to the end.”

Stuart
  1. Head of the Chinese Communist Party delegtation during the 1946 negotiations with General Marshall and the Chinese Government.
  2. December 18, 1946: Department of State, United States Relations With China (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1949), p. 689.
  3. President of the National Government of the Republic of China.
  4. On December 19, 1946, the New York Times reported that on December 18 Senator Ralph E. Flanders (Vermont) and Senator James E. Murray (Montana) had advanced a proposal that an international conference, composed of the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, be held and attended by representatives of all political parties in China, to terminate the civil war in China. Signers of the proposal were Owen Lattimore, Johns Hopkins University; Harley F. MacNair, University of Chicago; H. H. Fisher, Hoover Library, Stanford University: and Foster Rhea Dulles, Ohio State University.
  5. December 27, 1945, Department of State Bulletin, December 30, 1945, p. 1030; for correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, pp. 560 ff.
  6. Kuomintang.
  7. January 10, 1946, vol. ix, p. 125.
  8. United States Relations With China, pp. 610–619.
  9. February 25, 1946, vol. ix, p. 295.
  10. December 15, 1915, United States Relations With China, p. 607.
  11. Vol. ix, p. 603.
  12. Chinese general and Governor of Shansi.
  13. Signed at Shanghai, August 30, 1946, Department of State, Report to Congress on Foreign Surplus Disposal, October 1946, p. 40; for correspondence, see pp. 1033 ff.
  14. Signed at Nanking, November 4, 1946, Department of State Treaties and Other International Acts Series (T.I.A.S.) No. 1871, or 63 Stat. (pt. 2) 1299; for correspondence, see pp. 1227 ff.
  15. Signed at Nanking, December 20, 1946. T.I.A.S. No. 1609, or 61 Stat. (pt. 3) 2799; for correspondence, see pp. 1228 ff.
  16. For correspondence on this subject, see pp. 810 ff.
  17. First President of the Republic of China, 1912–16.
  18. President elected in 1923.