893.00/10–2844
The Second Secretary of Embassy in China (Penfield) to the Secretary of State 45
[Received November 23.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my despatches no. 37, July 14, 1944, “Manifestos Urging Democracy for China,” no. 49, October 13, 1944,46 “P. P. C. Members’ Report to Students”, and other despatches reporting on various phases of the so-called “democratic movement”, and to report that, both in public and in private, relatively active and widespread criticism of the Central Government and demands for the institution of democracy continue locally.
This activity is manifested vocally not only in the public speeches of those non-Kuomintang political leaders such as Chang Lan who do not hesitate to express themselves openly, but also in the private conversation of many political, military and business leaders. Within recent weeks, for instance, Generals Teng Hsi-hou and P’an Wen-hwa and General Liu Wen-hui’s Chief of Staff have told me in almost identical words that there is an irresistible “tide of democracy” sweeping China which must result in radical changes in the governmental structure. (Teng, P’an and Liu are, as the Department is aware, the three most powerful Szechwan militarists).
In the local press the extent of this activity is illustrated by the fact that during the first 22 days of October, out of 127 editorials appearing in the Chengtu papers, 34 either criticized the Government, directly or indirectly, or urged the institution of democracy, while only 11 editorials defended the Government or urged the sinking of party differences for the sake of national unity, et cetera.
The defenders of the Government commonly cite certain examples which they allege prove that the Government is doing its best to correct the admitted evils of the administration and to institute democratic reforms. The critics, on the other hand, quote rebuttals for these arguments, which they allege prove that the situation is not being fundamentally improved and that the Government is not sincere in the gestures it is making to answer criticism. Some of the most frequently repeated of these arguments and rebuttals are outlined below.
Argument: At the recent P. P. C. meeting there was more frank and free criticism and discussion than at any similar meeting in recent years.
[Page 661]Rebuttal: Talk is cheap, the only real evidence of a sincere desire to improve the situation is action, and the only politically significant action resulting from the P. P. C. meeting, the decision to send an inspection party to the Communist areas, has now been vitiated by the announcement that the party will not proceed because the members are “too busy.”
Argument: The censorship laws have been relaxed to permit publication of certain types of periodicals without pre-censorship.
Rebuttal: The only periodicals affected are the relatively few purely technical or scientific publications which never even indirectly touch on political matters; this relaxation therefore has no significance.
Argument: A so-called Habeas Corpus Act has been promulgated.
Rebuttal: Although the law has been promulgated and various orders have been issued supposedly providing for effective enforcement, no significant number of political prisoners have yet been released, innumerable classes of officials and official organizations still retain the power of arrest, and illegal arrests, such as the recent seizing of a Hsin Hua Erh Pao newsboy, continue (see my despatch no. 52, October 27, 194447).
Argument: There was a recent democratic election of ward chiefs in Chengtu and at the end of this year there are to be free elections of District Advisory Council members in 26 districts in Szechwan, and these Councils will in turn choose the District Magistrates in their respective districts.
Rebuttal: The ward chief candidates were all hand-picked by the authorities and this election therefore has no significance. A secret order has been issued which requires that each candidate for a District Advisory Council position be “guaranteed” by a Kuomintang member, and these elections will therefore have no meaning.
These arguments, and the apparent lack of any positive effort to answer the rebuttals, are interpreted by some observers here as indicating that the Government has felt the necessity of making some gestures to answer foreign criticism but that it has no intention of making any concessions which would result in a significant lessening of its power and control, and that, by its failure to make any strong appeal for the people’s support, it shows that it considers its position not sufficiently threatened to warrant the employment of any but the usual methods of repression. On the other hand, those who believe that a real threat to Central Government control is developing, maintain that the Government is just blind and does not have the intelligence to recognize that it is fatal to continue its policy of repression unmixed with either genuine concessions to democracy or positive attempts to answer its critics and bid for popular support.
Respectfully yours,