125.6336/2–2349: Telegram
The Minister-Counselor of Embassy in China (Clark) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:16 p. m.]
Cantel 76. I think we can safely assume that Communists will tolerate functioning our Consular establishments in areas controlled by them only so long as functioning those establishments serves Communist interests (Department telCan 27, sent Nanking 252,18 repeated Shanghai 333, February 22). It seems to me unconscionable that they should have maintained our Consular establishment in Mukden incommunicado since November 18 and that in Tientsin since January 23. What we know of their difficulties as well as those of Clubb in Peiping to establish contact with local Communist authorities in accordance international practice under unrecognized governments seems rather strongly to indicate Communist intention to use recognition of consular functions as quid pro quo for obtaining de jure recognition of National Communist government. In the circumstances, it would seem mistake to admit justification keeping our people incommunicado even during period military operations and adjustment, particularly when our own radio circuits were established and being used solely for official government business. Threat to withdraw Consulate Mukden at this stage would appear play into Communist hands and should not be made lightly. So long as our people are not in physical danger, it is only reasonable to assume they are acquiring knowledge which will be of value later even though they cannot report for time being. Should we threaten to withdraw Consulate Mukden and later have to withdraw, we would prejudice, I believe, our position in other areas China and might find ourselves, as in Soviet Union, without listening posts other than in capital.
May I venture suggestion our best policy would be have Consulates General Peiping and Hong Kong express at every opportunity our concern at continued absence communications with our Consulates [Page 940] Mukden and Tientsin and our expectation that communications will be restored forthwith. We may not get anywhere with such arguments, but at least we will not be condoning even temporary suspension communication facilities in contravention international practice.
Sent Department; repeated Nanking 72, Shanghai 44.
- Dated February 22, noon, supra.↩