Office of the Historian

800.48FRP/9–1847

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

Nanking, September 18, 1947—4 p.m.
[Received September 18—9:40 a.m.]

1956. Par 20. 1. Embassy representatives summarized Department’s views (as given in Rap 11877) to Foreign Office in meeting today and advised Chinese acceptance U. S. points of principle previously under discussion. Foreign Office representatives also informed [Page 1347] that while no answer yet received to Par 18 [17],78 “preliminary comments” in Rap 118 seemed to answer points raised paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, and subparagraph 4 of former telegram.

2. Reference paragraph 7, Par 18 [17], Chinese now state they prefer original wording second sentence in article II, section f, with last clause beginning “and reserves the right, et cetera” deleted. Chinese argue that other clauses in agreement adequately protect U. S. on withdrawal from or restrictions in participation controlled distribution plan. Embassy has no objection this latest change if Department perceives none.

3. Foreign Office evidently intends to consult Chinese Embassy, Washington, and Dr. Wang Shih-chieh before agreeing withdrawal of objection on all major issues. Latter may, therefore, consult Department directly on these points. Embassy here believes this desirable as means of expediting Chinese acceptance final draft.

4. Importance of early action on completing negotiations has been emphasized to Chinese, especially from supply and procurement standpoints. It is expected Foreign Office will respond to realities of situation. Embassy hopes Central Bank undertaking to reimburse Agriculture Department for purchase of rice (see Par 1979), if relief agreement is not signed, will be adequate protection of U. S. Government interest and permit definite procurement commitments to be made by Agriculture Department. Acting Relief Advisor80 assumed from penultimate sentence Rap 10781 that such assurances from the Central Bank would be sufficient protection to permit Department’s authorizing commitment, and so indicated to Governor of Central Bank.82 Believe, therefore, that procurement should proceed, especially since rice is involved.

Sent Department, repeated Shanghai by courier as 791.

Stuart
  1. Department’s telegram No. 1153, September 15, 6 p.m., not printed; it set forth two preliminary comments on questions raised by the Chinese: That the Department could not change provisions responsive to the Relief Act even though some phraseology was unpalatable and that the Department was not committed to any fixed amount of aid (800.48 FRP/9–1147).↩
  2. Supra. ↩
  3. Telegram No. 2195, September 15, 9 a.m., from the Consulate General at Shanghai, not printed.↩
  4. Donald S. Gilpatric.↩
  5. Telegram No. 1134, September 9, 6 p.m., to the Ambassador in China, not printed.↩
  6. Chang Kia-ngau.↩