893.00/2–447: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Smith) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 4—4:55 p.m.]
289. Izvestya’s International Review February 1 comments on Department announcement that US had left Committee of Three in China as rounding off definite stage in US foreign policy. Stating committee was formed on US initiative after Moscow Conference,19 had agreed on democratization of China, but had followed US support for reactionary circles prior to Marshall’s arrival, article continues, US arbitration extremely one-sided, expressing itself in intensified military and economic support for Kuomintang. Committee was used as cover for US intervention in China’s internal affairs on side of Kuomintang, which violated all decisions of PCC20 adopted by all Chinese political organizations. Article claims Kuomintang denounced armistice, refused to create coalition government and introduced constitution in National Assembly legalizing power of a reactionary clique.
It claims US has placed stakes on Kuomintang and ignored changes that have taken place in China. Bankruptcy of American policy in China is said to have been admitted by Marshall before leaving China in statement accusing extremist elements in Communist Party, but admitting also Kuomintang opposition to formation of coalition government and fact that civil war was directed by Kuomintang against Communist army of million Chinese.
Article concludes that events will show whether US will draw correct inference or attempt intervention in new form.
Department repeat Nanking.
- See Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. vii, pp. 560 ff.↩
- Political Consultative Conference. For its resolutions as adopted, see United States Relations With China, pp. 610–621.↩