701.0093/8–1549: Telegram
The Counselor of Embassy in China (Jones) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:20 a. m.]
1788. Consistency shown by CCP in denying official representative character of diplomatic missions Nanking and consulates in Communist China leaves no doubt it is deliberate policy (see Embtel 1787, August 15). All Communist officials from top to bottom mouth same phrase about absence of diplomatic relations and obviously have been well indoctrinated. Whether this is purely CCP policy or whether it has been arrived at in agreement with Moscow is unkown. It is clear, however, that in its implementation Soviets cooperate fully. (Re closure their consulates Peiping, Shanghai and transfer Soviet Ambassador57 and major Embassy staff out of Nanking prior Communist occupation.) If Communist policy of nonrecognition on de facto basis arrived at by agreement with Moscow, it would be of course even more inflexible than if independent policy.
Several reasons suggest themselves for this revolutionary concept of attitude of de facto authorities toward official representatives of established sovereign states: [Page 815]
- 1.
- By stubbornly refusing to permit establishment informal relations by slightest act or word with foreign diplomatic representatives, CCP hopes to force de jure recognition on its own terms immediately central government is established. Interim period probably considered softening up process which will make individual diplomat and his government that much more anxious to regularize position through establishment formal relations as soon as this becomes possibility.
- 2.
- This is Soviet concept of international relations prior formal recognition and has been suggested by USSR. It not only appeals to xenophobic “middle kingdom” mentality of China but is most useful instrument for Soviets in diminishing western influence, official and private in China. As a part of this policy CCP utilizes present position of missions to impress upon Communist officialdom and Chinese public in general apparent helplessness of foreign governments in face of Communist power.
- 3.
- CCP is not anxious for relations with West either formal or informal in early stages of Communist regime. It has deep distrust of anything non-Communist and when Mao58 refers to willingness to establish diplomatic relations with all nations on basis equality, mutual benefit, etc., he is talking only in terms of CCP conditions for recognition which would obviously be impossible of acceptance to any non-Communist government of the West.
If any above analyses correct, would appear continued maintenance diplomatic establishment Nanking worse than useless. Not only is diplomatic mission unable to carry out its representative function on even most informal basis, but mere presence diplomatic personnel, particularly chiefs mission, gratuitously provides Communist authorities means of pressure to impel establishment formal diplomatic relations on Communist terms. Western powers may find themselves more and more restricted politically in their freedom of action toward Chinese Communist regime by presence official personnel here.
We must admit that Communists have whip hand in this situation, and that they will not hesitate to use it to their advantage. Longer we remain here and more we attempt to deal with local authorities, more we are all convinced that we cannot have it both ways. There are only two courses: Either we stay and take it, lending ourselves to this new interpretation of international relations, or we withdraw until such time as we can return with recognition and assurances of ability to function. It is, of course, for Department’s decision whether our usefulness here in present circumstances outweighs considerations of our anomalous position.
Sent Department 1788, repeated AmEmbassy Canton 751.