851G.00/5–1547: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State
1054. Prior to his departure for Paris on leave, the French Ambassador1 in conversation with Minister-Counselor2 briefly reviewed Sino-French Indo-China situation. In his opinion before 1946 the Chinese Govt definitely had designs of infiltration and control but that about the beginning of that year it made a volte-face due to: (1) the difficulties Chinese authorities were experiencing in reestablishing themselves in other areas and in particular Manchuria; (2) the difficulties and opposition they had experienced in attempting to carry out their designs in Indo-China, particularly with the Annamites; (3) the necessity for having clean hands before the court of world opinion and UN. French Ambassador feels they have never wavered in that latter decision since it was made. He also stated his conviction, which he indicated he had reiterated to Paris, that both Gimo3 and Foreign Minister4 profoundly fear a Communist dominated Vietnam Govt and accordingly prefer the reestablishment of an enlightened French colonial administration of a modern type. French Ambassador cited the notably negligible amount of criticism in Chinese Govt controlled and influenced press of French actions in Indo-China, despite such occurrences as bombing and shooting of Chinese civilians. In this connection he welcomed decision of French Govt (reference Paris’ telegram 4, May 9 to Nanking, sent Dept as 19055) to compensate Chinese, although not required to do so under international law, and indicated that he had urged his Govt to take this course as an act of statesmanship. He added that of course the Chinese would exaggerate their claims and appear to be dissatisfied with the eventual settlement but he felt that end result would nevertheless redound to France’s interests.
An opportunity was made to query French Counselor regarding actions and attitude of Chinese Consul General at Hanoi without divulging info contained in Deptcirc May 8, 11 a.m.,5 and he too reiterated conviction that Chinese were not playing a double game but vouchsafed the opinion that Chinese Consul General was attempting to play his own game acting perhaps under pressure from powerful Chinese community interest. He cited fact that at least on one occasion French Embassy had definite proof that he had reported incorrectly [Page 99] to Chinese Foreign Office statements to him by French authorities in Indo-China.
Dept please repeat to Hanoi, Saigon, and Paris.