Marshall Mission Files, Lot 54–D270: Telegram
Mr. Walter S. Robertson to General Marshall
8259. Team 25 completely blocked in investigation of Anping incident by Communists despite assurances given me by Communist Party [Page 167] Commissioner outlined in my 8111.52 General Huang, Communist Party team member, continues his refusal to permit examination of the two National Government witnesses. Upon motion American member, deadlock was referred to Three Commissioners on 9th September. Commissioners meeting was immediately convened. To our surprise Communist Party Commissioner reversed his former position and took that of General Huang in arguing that the testimony of these witnesses would not establish facts directly related to incident. When section f of procedure directive quoted in 8111 was called to his attention he requested adjournment until today in order to have opportunity to study Chinese text with interpreter.
This morning before meeting in private conversation he informed me that his subordinates in meeting last night voted unanimously not to hear the two witnesses and asked my cooperation. I informed him that I appreciated the difficulty of his position, but that the Commissioners after 10 days of argument had agreed upon a procedure directive, clear and unmistakable in its language and I could not go back on that agreement. The Commissioners Meeting this morning lasted for more than 2 hours. Yeh is an intelligent man and aside from his earlier confidences it was apparent from his irrelevant arguments he was indulging in blocking tactics. He first argued that section f was no longer necessary as all the witnesses needed for the investigation had been called under a, b, c, d, and e. It was recalled to his memory that the Communists had at one time expressed the fear that an attempt would be made to close the investigation without giving the Communist Party an opportunity for presenting their witnesses and that section f was to insure not only the Communists but all sides that every opportunity would be given to present their cases. He then switched back to the old argument that the testimony of the two witnesses would not have a direct bearing on the incident. The National Government Commissioner then described his witnesses as follows: a. A civilian who was proceeding by truck on the main highway in the vicinity of Anping between 8 and 9 o’clock on the morning 29 July 1946. The truck was fired upon and the witness wounded by Communist Party forces in position along the road. His truck was taken away from him and he remained in the immediate vicinity throughout the incident. b. The leader of a local Communist irregular militia unit in the vicinity of Anping who acted as a guide for the regular Communist troops in arranging for the ambush. Pie was subsequently captured on 3 August by National Government troops near Ho Hsi Wu and has been held captive since that time. Yeh finally agreed to allow these witnesses to testitfy [Page 168] but only on the following conditions: (a) that the civilian owner of the truck be interrogated under the provisions of section f and (b), that the captive Communist irregular be interrogated under the provisions of section g of the procedure directive. Section g reads as follows: “Visit, interrogate and record testimony of National Government unit which Communists allege participated in the conflict and which National Government told [and] First Marine Division Commander, Major General Rockey, denied participated in the conflict”.
When it was pointed out that this captive was a Communist and not a member of a National Government unit and could not be called under section g, Yeh argued for the next hour that section g was intended to include all those who participated in conflict and that to hear this witness under section g would establish the fact that National Government troops did actually participate in conflict. This makes no sense but is what he said over and over again. It was apparent he felt that if it should be expressly stated that the witness was being called under section g it would be a tacit admission by the National Government that the troops who captured him were participating in the conflict and it would furnish good propaganda. The National Government Commissioner strongly objected. When it was apparent that the Communist Party Commissioner would not change his position the only course remaining was to have each Commissioner report the situation to his respective member of the Committee of Three.
It is apparent that the Communists feel that the testimony of these two witnesses would be very damaging to their case and they were looking for any way out which would minimize its effect. However the procedure directive admits but one interpretation as you will note from the copy left with Caughey. I suggest that it be presented to Chou En Lai and he be requested to instruct Communist Branch here to proceed accordingly. If Chou En Lai refuses I recommend that the American member record the testimony and regard it as an addenda to the separate United States member report he will inevitably have to make.