893.9111 RR/6–2649: Telegram
The Consul General at Shanghai (Cabot) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 27—1:16 a. m.]
2497. Press reported incidents of last few weeks involving foreigners have dampened any initial optimism with which foreign colony may have regarded future under Communist rule. Facts in at least three cases grossly misrepresented in vernacular newspapers and methods by which cases resolved do not offer assurances of fair treatment according to western conceptions due process of law. In fact, there is no law as yet and cases being decided by fiat of branches of SMCC Public Safety Department. Actual facts British-owned Union Brewery [Page 1185] case (remytel 229074), according to company official, were that manager Bredrup had attempted run away to avoid being locked in office by employees as part of what is by now familiar Shanghai labor bargaining technique. Chinese employee tripped him, and to save himself from falling Bredrup grabbed Chinese tearing latter’s sleeve. Other Chinese struck at Bredrup. Bredrup did not strike any Chinese. In Shanghai Tramway Co. incident (remytel 2425, June 2375) Matheson had verbal altercation with Chinese employee over sick leave. Chinese grabbed Matheson’s coat lapels, whereupon Matheson backed away and Chinese fell, striking mouth against desk. Initial worker’s protest relatively mild, with no claim that Matheson had struck employee. Later, second protest filed, alleging version of incident reported mytel. Police later removed Matheson from office at gun point, jailed him incommunicado, and insisted that Shanghai Tramway Co. dismiss him, pay indemnity to injured worker, and offer public apology, before case could be considered further. Callender case (mytel 2308 [2208], June 11) also one in which Chinese employees appear equally to blame for eventual row.
Method of handling each offense has followed pattern: Storm of protests at bad conduct of foreigner sent to newspapers by fellow employees of plaintiff, by peaceful onlookers, and by people in other occupations however unrelated to original plaintiff, accompanied by many readings of moral that days of imperialism and special privilege in Shanghai are over. Foreigner inevitably found to be wrong, forced to recompense Chinese for damages suffered, and to make public apology promising never to repeat offense. Such chastisement and accompanying publicity in keeping with Chinese ideas of “face” seems designed to humiliate rather than to punish severely.
While above incidents may be explained by natural emphasis on nationalism in newborn revolutionary regime, fact that Communist authorities apparently seizing on slightest pretext to demonstrate their own potence and impotence [of] foreigners significant partly (1) as settlement of old scores against foreigner for his activities under extraterritoriality; (2) as attempt in pulling foreigner from pedestal he so long occupied (and doubtless exploited) to give average Chinese self respect and sense own importance never before enjoyed in this international city; (3) as desire keep foreigner in line by eliminating his sense of security and by impressing him with fact that he dwells Shanghai on sufferance of conquering PLA which will treat him well and protect him so long as he behaves: Good behavior being interpreted as unquestioning acquiescence in any rule or decree, however detrimental to his own interest. Another explanation is that with hard economic times ahead, Communist authorities wish take people’s minds off unfilled [Page 1186] needs and give them something else think about by bringing time-honored foreign scapegoat to their attention. This technique, incidentally, also used by previous Kmt regime.
In fairness, it should be noted that all incidents mentioned above have involved alleged misconduct by foreigners and that Communist authorities have in general adhered to Mao Tse-tung’s point 8 in protecting lives and property of foreigners who abide by laws and regulations of PLA, do not engage in espionage activities, et cetera. Communist authorities dispersed workers in StanVac dispute (remytel 2460 of June 24) and, according to British Consul General, also effectively intervened yesterday to prevent violence in dispute involving British company. These somewhat encouraging indications that authorities have decided to curb labor violence. They also support belief that Communist authorities may desire retain modicum good will on part of foreign business community to help restore foreign trade and bring Shanghai economy back to life. Just how they hope to accomplish this and at same time put foreigners in their place is not clear. Increasing mood among American businessmen is that of packing up and leaving Shanghai rather than submit to humiliations and insecurities of present situation.
Sent Department; repeated Nanking 1356, OffEmb Canton 805.