893.24/4–1547: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Smith) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received April 15—9:33 a.m.]
1373. Kosmos 39. For Vincent from Carter. The Secretary has not gone thoroughly into the problem but has stated (1) that he does [Page 820] not approve of ammunition sale without public announcement personally approved by him, and (2) he does not agree that the transaction would be unrelated to or have no bearing upon the general policy toward China. Your Moskco 4681 refers.
Follows now a summation of some of the pitfalls as seen here: It seems highly improbable that the proposed ammunition transfer could be kept from the press and consequently it would appear more desirable to lay all the facts on the table, if, as and when the transfer were made. While ammunition in question was procured for Chinese as a result of commitment made before V–J Day, it is understood here that commitment was made under Lend-Lease. The President’s statement of December 1946 stated categorically: “This Government has completed its wartime Lend-Lease commitments to China”. Transfers of combat material were suspended last summer and have not since been resumed. The President’s statement points out that Lend-Lease after February 1946 “was reduced to the fulfillment of outstanding commitments, much of which were later suspended”. In discussing the Surplus Property Agreement, the President said: “No weapons which could be used in fighting a civil war were made available through this agreement”. If, in view of the foregoing, a sale or transfer of ammunition to the Chinese Govt were made now, it could be construed only as a change in our policy toward China.
If anything, conditions in China have worsened since the President’s statement last December, and no real improvement is apparent in the National Government. How then do we justify such a change in policy? I realize this is 64 dollar question, and must emphasize this message purely informal exploratory personal views on low working level. [Carter.]