893.20 Mission/9–1446: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Stuart)
768. Although Navy would prefer agreement covering naval contingent only (Embs 1483, Sept 14), War would wish combined agreement which with appropriate modifications would formalize existing functions of both contingents. Dept hopes to reconcile apparent divergency but would wish to have a more complete statement of views of Emb, in consultation with General Marshall. Dept does not understand clearly sense of final paragraph ref telegram especially phrase “barefaced action”.
Has Chinese Govt accepted suggested alterations in Articles 16, 17 and 19 of draft agreement (Deptel 418, July 8)?
It was Dept’s understanding that draft agreement now in hands of Chinese Govt was to become effective upon date of signing based upon President’s Emergency War Powers and/or actual existence of Enabling Legislation (Deptel 602, Aug. 13), Articles 24 and 26 excepted. Accordingly the necessity of introducing a new Article XXXI as proposed in Com Seventh Fleet’s CNO 043124Z, Sep 1563 is not clearly understood since such an agreement would not permit the Army Advisory Group to commence formal operations until passage of Enabling Legislation.
Dept is inclined to question advisability of concluding any formal agreement with Chinese Govt at this stage because of possible compromise to General Marshall’s negotiations and probable adverse public reaction here under present conditions of civil strife in China. However, Dept is withholding judgment pending receipt of Emb’s recommendations, coordinated with General Marshall.