123 Stuart, J. Leighton: Telegram
The Ambassador in China (Stuart) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 17—11:33 p. m.]
1522. In retrospect I feel that Communist leaders picked up chance suggestion that I might like to spend my birthday again this year at Yenching with extraordinary alacrity and I can only interpret it as earnest desire that I take initiative to travel to Peiping and be available for conversations with some of them. Not only did Huang Hua raise question twice here, but, according to my friends in Peiping, Mao openly stated that I would be welcome in Peiping if I wished to visit my old university. From other sources I have received reports that Mao–Chou6 counted on entertaining me and talking to me during this ostensibly private visit to Peiping. Cabot reported on July 8 from Shanghai that “Chinese friend informed me he has word from Peiping that you asked Chou En-lai whether you might visit Yenching and see him and that Chou replied noncommittally”.
When I refused to go I feel that they all lost some face but particularly Huang Hua who first took initiative here. My suspicions this respect are confirmed by recent remark of Huang Hua’s number two, Ch’en Ying, who, in connection with some difficulties I and my party are having in obtaining our exit permits from China, said to Fugh, “If Stuart had gone Peiping all these little questions would have been easily settled”. Fugh feels that since time when I told Huang of my belief that I would not be able to go to Peiping attitude of Communist authorities from top down has changed and hardened, including our personal relations locally. I am inclined to agree there has been change but whether it comes from chagrin over my [Page 785] refusal to visit Peiping or general reflection of orthodox line laid down in Mao’s July 1 article7 I cannot say.
Sent Department; repeated OffEmb Canton 635, Shanghai 854. Department pass Peiping 272.