811.20200(D)/1–2648
The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 11.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose for the information of the Department copy of a memorandum dated December 19, 19475 which was prepared by Miss Mary E. Barrett, Chief News Editor, USIS-China. This memorandum which sets forth her objections to the extension of USIS work to Chinese prisoner of war camps is being transmitted for consideration of the Department at the insistence of Miss Barrett. She was informed that the Acting Director of USIS and the Embassy are in strong disagreement with her views and that the Embassy would feel constrained to express its opinion. She agreed to any procedure on the understanding that her memorandum be submitted to the Department for its consideration.
In its comments on the memorandum the Embassy might take as its text the question once posed by Pontius Pilate, sometime Procurator of Judea, on the subject of truth. In brief, it appears to be the opinion of Miss Barrett that utilization of USIS materials for Communist prisoners of war results in an identification of the United States with the National Government of China; that it is a violation of the fundamental concept that USIS exists primarily to present a fair and full picture of the United States; that it is a dissipation of energy among groups who are of little consequence in the Chinese community; and that the net result will be disillusionment among the prisoners of war when they realize that the objectives of the United States and of Nationalist China are not one and the same thing.
[Page 60]In reply to the above the Embassy would state its understanding that whatever may be the approval or disapproval of any given individual it is the avowed policy of the United States to support and assist in the rehabilitation of the National Government of China with the objective of weakening and nullifying the Communist effort and that USIS has and should have a definite role to play in the interpretation of this policy. Granted it is the American view that presentation of truth is in itself the most powerful weapon of persuasion, there is the added factor that being human and therefore fallible we must present truth as we see it. During the course of history many groups and individuals have claimed to have had a monopoly on truth in its abstract sense. History so far fails to record any instance in which any dogma with such pretensions has succeeded in attracting universal and timeless support. It seems to the Embassy unfortunate that in times as sharp as those in which we live it should still be necessary to refute dogmatic and hazy conceptions of truth, however honest and idealistic the motivation may be. The facts of the struggle in China today are that he who has force and the knowledge of how to use it will come to power. Intellectual and academic circles in China lack that force and furthermore lack the strong will power and the conviction of tightness which can make them an effective instrument in the Chinese community. If a selection between audiences became necessary the Embassy would incline to the view that some presentation of the American scene would be more useful when given to Communist prisoners who after all have been subjected to at least a certain amount of indoctrination of the Communist view, than to Chinese intellectual groups who are presumed to have some knowledge of the American way and a readier access to information thereon. Communist prisoners when released are returned to their native villages where the prospects of their ever subsequently being reached by USIS are almost negligible. The Embassy questions, incidentally, whether any Chinese audience has ever had to be forced to look at any motion picture on any subject. The Embassy’s only regret is that the limitations of budget prevent an ever greater program among prisoners of war. It seems unlikely that utilization of American propaganda instruments by Nationalist China will necessarily result in losing the American identity of material. If that identity should be lost it would seem to be the fault of the one who is presenting it rather than of the material.
The fear which Miss Barrett expresses that the American definition of democracy would be confused with the definition professed and practiced by the Nationalist Government seems to be largely a tilting at windmills. To the average Chinese who comes in contact with our material, either definition is meaningless. He is interested primarily [Page 61] in enough to eat, a reasonable freedom from oppression and will in the predictable future follow that leader who can persuade that he will give both. To speak of democracy in our terms to those who are cold, hungry and illiterate, is to make a mockery of the term and to follow the same tragic error which has so largely nullified the traditional role of the Chinese intellectual in his own society. It would seem to be in the American interest to persuade those who can do something about it that the side which the United States supports is best calculated to fulfill the minimum desires of the peasant. The time has not yet arrived when a program of propaganda in China can yet hope to appeal to the Chinese masses on the basis of the generalities of philosophy and political science. It is painfully apparent from the success of the Chinese Communists that this lesson at least they have learned.
In fairness to Miss Barrett it should be stated that the Embassy does agree with one point she has made, namely, that it is almost one full year now since USIS has received any new directive from the Department. It is apparent that the situation in China and in the world at large has undergone marked changes demanding constant review of the USIS program if the program is to be effective (reference Shanghai’s Despatch No. 38 of January 12). The Embassy and USIS may well indeed have been lax in not putting forth more suggestions than they have, but we also believe the final determination on such matters must necessarily be made in the Department which has available a more comprehensive basis on which to make such decisions than is the case in China.
Respectfully yours,
Minister-Counselor
- Not printed.↩