Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Far East: China, Volume VIII

393.1115/11–2248: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Stuart)⁶⁸

Washington, November 23, 1948—8 p.m.

1691. Apparent from Shanghai’s tel 2489, Nov 22, rptd Nanking 1879, that there exists disparity in thinking between Dept and field re questions evacuation. Dept of opinion Americans in China divide into two categories for evacuation purposes not including dependents of Armed Forces personnel who are engaged in quasi-military activities and who move only under orders: (1) Civilians and their dependents whose presence China not essential and who have no compelling reason remain China; and (2) Americans whose presence China essential to continue functioning U. S. business, educational, missionary, or other enterprise. Dept’s intention in authorizing issuance evacuation warnings was to enable adequate notice be given all Americans in China of worsening situation and transportation difficulties and permit Americans both above categories make arrangements depart if they so desired. Dept did not, however, contemplate that Americans in category (2) would depart in large numbers but would rather adopt traditional policy toward civil disorders in China as in case of Consulates and Emb. Hazards of advising Americans to remain China, thus assuming partial responsibility for any untoward effects resulting from such advice, obvious and undesirable, but Dept believes it equally undesirable to urge Americans in category (2) to evacuate. Present position Americans in China totally different from that obtaining 1940–1941 when war involving US appeared imminent, and Dept fails comprehend Shanghai’s reference to “possible repatriation and exchange arrangements”. As indicated Depcirtel Nov 17, when discussing evacuation arrangements with interested business and missionary organizations, Dept has invariably coupled recapitulation of facts re evacuation warnings with statement that no change contemplated in continued functioning consular establishments and therefore by hypothesis US organizations having considerable interests and stake in China might follow similar course. If key employees Shanghai Power Co., for example, were to depart Shanghai even at last minute as suggested reftel, Dept believes predominant American interest that company would be seriously jeopardized.

Dept realizes that conditions obtaining various parts China when occupied by Comms may differ and that Emb and Consulates must exercise flexibility re evacuation procedure. Experience Mukden, for example, indicates only danger Americans experienced arose from looting pillaging by Nationalist troops during period interregnum and subsequent bombing by CAF following Comm occupation. Mukden’s 586, Nov. 16 rptd Nanking 696⁶⁹ states “No instances of arrests or molestation in any way any foreign persons remaining Mukden. Attitude remains correct.” While Dept realizes liberal treatment accorded in Mukden may well be temporary phenomenon, incoming troops obviously thoroughly briefed re attitude and actions toward foreigners. Peiping’s 474, Nov 19, sent Nanking as 703,⁷⁰ indicating no considerable civil unrest or breakdown law and order expected in Peiping if Comms occupy also case in point. Conditions Shanghai and Nanking may vary considerably from those north China, but Dept believes chief danger to US citizens and property would arise during any period between collapse or withdrawal present administration and successor regime.

Re final para Shanghai’s reftel, Dept does not desire that any staff members Emb or ConGen be evacuated with exception those female employees who specifically request such evacuation. Emb and Con-Gen should not therefore except in extremis urge evacuation on staff members even on “last minute” basis as such evacuation would have adverse effect on continued functioning your offices.

Dept’s position re evacuation Emb and consular dependents clearly set forth in Deptels 1199 Aug 18 and 1302 Sept 13⁷¹ with request concerned Consulates be informed. This position unchanged and Emb should therefore not put pressure on dependents to evacuate (as indicated Clark’s letter to Butterworth Nov 10⁷³) if concerned officer or employee does not desire such evacuation. Emb inform concerned Consulates above sense.

Lovett

68. Repeated to the Consul General at Shanghai as telegram No. 2004.
69. Vol. vii, p. 571.
70. Not printed.
71. Vol. vii, pp. 822 and 823, respectively.
73. Not found in Department files.