701.0093/8–549: Telegram
The Counselor of Embassy in China ( Jones ) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 5—12:29 p. m.]
1722. Within Nanking’s Diplomatic Corps there is currently considerable speculation whether Ambassador Stuart’s departure is going to be followed by new Communist transgressions against foreign diplomatic missions and nationals. By his mere presence in Nanking, this great and understanding friend of China undoubtedly extended a certain mantle of protection to all foreigners here. Now that he has left China it is not excluded that Communists will close our transmitters, prohibit code messages over commercial facilities, initiate arbitrary arrests and humiliations à la Olive,47 aggravate our labor troubles by supporting extortionate demands [by] employees of foreigners, incite ex-employees of AAG48 to claim severance pay from this Embassy, increase our cost of living by various financial taxation maneuvers, and in general make our hold here untenable. Altho these persecutions have so far touched Nanking lightly as compared with Shanghai, whole trend of developments points toward their increase. This would be even more probable if Chen Yi49 takes over administration [Page 812] Nanking. Communist reaction against escape of Amethyst 50 may also increase pressure against us.
Despite (1) example set by departure of American Ambassador, (2) local pessimism regarding immediate future of diplomatic missions in Nanking and (3) inactivity of those missions which lack radio communication with outside world, apparently few governments have thought through question of withdrawing from Nanking their chiefs of mission or their staffs either in part or in toto.
We assume it is in best interests of US Government now for other chiefs of mission to be withdrawn or at latest before formation CCP51 national government. This would accord with the “common front” policy of the Western Powers vis-à-vis the CCP and would strengthen bargaining position of these powers if and when they commence negotiation regarding diplomatic recognition of new CCP government. Unfortunately, however, there is little we in Nanking can do to encourage or facilitate departure of these chiefs of mission. At present whole question is still hypothetical because of absence of onward transportation out of Shanghai. British Ambassador52 is still without instructions to leave Nanking and his example affects other chiefs of mission. However, Canadian Ambassador has been instructed return Ottawa. We regret to say that one or two other chiefs to be [sic] are opposed to leaving Nanking near future for what appear to be personal reasons.
Department may wish discuss question of withdrawal of other chiefs of mission directly with other governments, placing emphasis on importance of “common front”, and bleak future facing missions in Nanking. It could take this opportunity to suggest that coordinated plan should be developed for diplomatic personnel Nanking as well for respective nationals Shanghai desiring evacuation. (See Deptel 1502, to Shanghai July 30, repeated Nanking 903.53) Chiefs of mission who still remain Nanking are: British, French, Italian, Belgian, Austrian, Burmese, Siamese, Canadian, Australian, Portuguese, Indian, Dutch, Egyptian, Iranian, Holy See. Missions presently headed by Chargé d’Affaires are: Swiss, Turk, Afghan, Polish and Philippine. USSR has Office Embassy headed by Counselor.
Repeated Shanghai 948, Canton 719, Department pass Peiping 322.
- For documentation on the case of William M. Olive, Vice Consul at Shanghai, see pp. 1155 ff.↩
- Army Advisory Group.↩
- Communist general and Mayor of Shanghai.↩
- H.M.S. Amethyst, British naval snip, crippled by Chinese Communist gunfire on the Yangtze off Nanking in April; at this time it had escaped downriver to Shanghai and thence to the open sea.↩
- Chinese Communist Party.↩
- Sir Ralph Stevenson.↩
- Vol. ix, p. 1278.↩