Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Far East: China, Volume VIII

102.22/8–2449: Telegram

The Consul at Shanghai (McConaughy) to the Secretary of State

Shanghai, August 24, 1949.
[Received August 24—3:46 a. m.]

3408. Following letter of protest of siege of ConGen by ex-Navy employees July 29 to August 2 despatched August 22:

“Mr. Chang Han-fu, Alien Affairs Department, Shanghai Military Control Commission, Broadway Mansions, Shanghai. On Friday, July 29, at 7:30 a. m. a group of approximately 30 to 40 workers representing themselves as delegates of the former employees of the US Navy forced their way into the premises of No. 2 Peking Road, which is owned by the Government of the US, and announced their intention of remaining in occupancy of the building indefinitely until satisfactory settlement of their demands regarding separation pay and severance bonuses had been agreed upon. Since this action constituted an illegal invasion of US Government property and was also in contravention of our understanding of point 8 of Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s proclamation regarding the protection of foreign property, we protested this action to the Alien Affairs Department of the Shanghai Military Control Commission. Furthermore, since the continued unauthorized presence of crowds varying from 20 to 80 within the premises of the building constituted a continuing threat to the maintenance of law and order, we also protested this potential violation of the peace to the local public safety officials.

“Below is set forth a record of the attempts which were made to secure intervention by the proper authorities:

• “1. At 7:30 a. m., on July 29 the Bureau of Public Security of the Whangpoo police station was informed of the invasion of our premises and the officer on duty indicated that police would be sent over.
• “2. At 9:35 a. m., on July 29 Mr. Reuben R. Thomas called upon Mr. Feng of your office and informed him of the developments. He called attention to the fact that the dispute between the workers and the US Navy, in which the representatives of this office were acting merely as go-between, had been fully laid before the Alien Affairs Department in our letter of July 12 and that we had been requested to take no further steps pending advice from your office; and had been assured that no violence would be permitted pending the receipt of such advice. Mr. Feng defended the action of the workers by insisting that, as ex-employees of a former occupant of 2 Peking Road, they had a legitimate right within the premises. Mr. Feng’s attention was also called to the fact that invasion of the premises of 2 Peking Road constituted a violation of the most elementary principles of international law and universal practice, since the premises in question were the property of the US Government and used for official purposes.
• “3. At approximately 10 o’clock on July 29 a second call to the Whangpoo police station inquiring why police had not arrived was answered by the statement that the police could not intervene in what they termed a labor dispute.
• “4. At approximately 11 a. m., on July 29, 2 officers from the Whangpoo police station came to the premises and talked with the workers’ delegates, but refused to discuss matters with personnel of this office.
• “5. At approximately 2 p. m., on July 29, the Whangpoo police station was again called and again refused to intervene in what they termed a labor dispute.
• “6. At approximately 2:30 p. m. the Alien Control Department of the Bureau of Public Security at the Foochow Road central police station was informed of the situation and likewise refused to intervene in what they termed a labor dispute.
• “7. At approximately 2:30 p. m., on Saturday July 30, a representative of this office delivered to an official of the Alien Affairs Department in its new offices at Broadway Mansions a communication which set forth the urgency and danger of this situation, and was informed that the communication was provisionally accepted although responsible officials were not available at the moment.
• “8. At approximately 8:30 p. m., on Saturday July 30, when the situation within the premises of 2 Peking Road had become critical due to threats of violence by the workers, the Whangpoo police station was again informed of this threat to law and order and again refused to intervene.
• “9. At 11:30 a. m., on Sunday July 31, 2 representatives of this office discussed the matter personally with an official of the Foochow Road police station who contended that the police could not interfere on the grounds that no violence had occurred which he interpreted to mean no one had been subjected to bodily violence or had been threatened with a gun. He finally agreed to send someone to investigate, but reiterated that the police could not interfere in a labor dispute and could only take action in case of violence. To the best of our knowledge no investigator ever appeared.

“The final withdrawal of the workers from our premises was not effected until 5:50 p. m., on Tuesday, August 2, after they had occupied the building for more than 4½ days. They were apparently persuaded to withdraw as a result of their having at last been made to realize the fact that their continued presence in the building, implying coercion and intimidation, made it impossible for us to refer to Washington, for the Navy Department’s consideration, the terms of settlement proposed by the Shanghai General Labor Union mediator at the meeting between representatives of the workers and our office held on the afternoon of August 1. This office has reason to believe that the final persuasion of the workers to withdraw is attributable to the help of your office.

“This office has recently also been given to understand that the workers had been cautioned from the beginning against violence; that your office was prepared at all times to have assistance rendered to us had actual bodily violence been inflicted by the workers upon officers of our staff; and that your office took steps to keep informed in regard to developments in the situation from that standpoint. I have welcomed these indications that your office took cognizance of the situation and eventually undertook remedial action.

“I must, however, place on record the following points:

• “(1). As the above Chronology of events makes abundantly clear, no effort was spared by this office to bring the developments noted to the attention of the proper authorities, despite which for over 4 days no positive action was taken by the authorities to protect property or to remove the unauthorized occupants from our premises.
• “(2). As it hardly seems necessary for me to repeat, this office had at all times exercised its good offices within the limit of its role as a go-between to reach an amicable and mutually agreeable solution to the problem. On the other hand, this office had from the very beginning also made it clear that it would not negotiate or discuss such problems under threats of force and intimidation.
• “(3). In my view, the failure of the local authorities for over 4 days, to take effective action to terminate the illegal occupation of the premises at 2 Peking Road, constitutes a serious repudiation of the minimum standards of international law and comity by condoning the invasion of the property of a sovereign state situated within territory purportedly controlled by those authorities.
• “(4). While prepared to recognize the authority [authorities?] reported readiness to stop any actual bodily violence which might be employed by the workers against members of our staff, I must point out that:
  • “(A). Had actual violence been inflicted upon members of our staff by the workers (as easily could have happened in view of their large numbers and high pitch excitement), the harm would have been done before police could have reached the building:
  • “(B). The treatment to which Mr. Thomas was subjected by the workers, involving, as it did, unremitting verbal pressure (including threats) and forcing him to go with very little food and sleep for over 24 hours, brought him to a point of nervous and physical exhaustion which was no less serious than bodily injury, and, in our opinion, is properly to be regarded as a form of violence.

“The failure of the authorities to take timely positive steps to insure against violence which might easily have occurred and to rescue Mr. Thomas from the cruel and unusual treatment to which he was actually subject is a further serious breach, not only of international law and comity, but also of universally accepted humanitarian standards.

“In reviewing these points for your attention, I must accordingly protest in the gravest terms the failure of the local authorities to fulfill, in the serious respects noted above, obligations towards protection of life and property which are universally recognized under international law and practice, and which, moreover, the authorities themselves have appeared clearly to recognize in publishing specific assurances by Chairman Mao Tze-tung and in other public pronouncements. Very truly yours, signed Walter P. McConaughy.”

Letter returned August 24 with following notation: “No diplomatic relations—your letter returned herewith. Message Center, Aliens Affairs Department August 23.”

Sent Department, repeated Nanking 1825.

McConaughy