--- Notes



Chiang Kai-shek, July 10, 1945 (Xinhua News Agency, Yan’an, the 10th) — The W National Consultative Assembly, convened for the purpose of masking Chiang Kai-shek’s dictatorial rule, opened in Chongqing on the 7th. The low attendance at the inaugural session was unprecedented in the history of the Consultative Assembly. Not only did no representatives from the Communist Party attend, but many others also stayed away. Out of a prescribed membership of 190, only 180 were present. In his opening address, Chiang Kai-shek delivered a lengthy speech. He stated: “With regard to the question of convening the National Assembly, the government does not intend to put forward any specific proposals, so that you may engage in full and free discussion. The government is prepared to listen, with the utmost sincerity and candor, to your views on these two or three matters.”  l, l5xliaxiiit><;-Xl.

The so-called case of convening the National Assembly on November 11 this year has probably come to an end. This affair was also linked to the imperialist Hurley. It was this very imperialist who vigorously urged Chiang Kai-shek to take this step. Emboldened by Hurley’s backing, Chiang’s tone grew progressively firmer: slightly tougher in his New Year’s Day address this year, and much more resolute by March 1, when he declared that he would “return power to the people” on November 11. In that March 1 address, however, he flatly rejected the proposal—put forward by the Chinese Democratic League as an expression of the Chinese people’s will—to hold an inter-party conference and establish a coalition government. At the same time, he lavishly praised the idea of setting up a so‑called tripartite commission, with American participation, to “reorganize” the Communist forces. Chiang even went so far as to assert that the Communists must first hand over their troops to him before he would deign to grant them “legal status.” All of this would have been impossible without Hurley’s decisive support.

On April 14, Hurley issued a statement in Washington that, beyond the usual imperialist clichés—denigrating the Communist Party’s standing, slandering its activities, and proclaiming non-cooperation with the Communists—also strongly endorsed Chiang’s sham National Assembly and other such schemes. Thus, the American Hurley and the Chinese Chiang, united in their shared aim of sacrificing the Chinese people, sang in perfect harmony, reaching a fever pitch of publicity. Thereafter, their momentum began to wane. Opponents abound—foreigners in China, members of the Kuomintang both inside and outside the party, partisans and non‑partisans alike—there are countless voices rising up against them. The reason is simple: despite all their pompous rhetoric, the Hurley–Chiang scheme ultimately seeks to sacrifice the Chinese people’s anti-Japanese struggle, further undermine national unity, lay the groundwork for a large-scale civil war, and thereby undermine the common interests of the United States and its allies in the anti-fascist war and in postwar peace. For an ambassador of an Allied nation and a “head of state” of one of the Four Powers to decide, in such a cavalier manner, political questions bearing on the fate of hundreds of millions of people, betrays a profound lack of responsibility. As for Hurley, it is now unclear what he is up to; he seems to have temporarily disappeared from view, leaving Chiang to make rambling remarks at the Consultative Assembly.

On March 1, Chiang had said: “Our situation differs from that of other countries. Even before the National Assembly is convened, we already lack a responsible body capable of representing the people and providing the government with guidance based on public opinion.” If that is indeed the case, why then is our chairman once again “seeking opinions” from the Consultative Assembly? According to the chairman himself, there exists no “responsible body capable of gauging public opinion” within China; the Consultative Assembly is merely a dining club. Any “consultation” held today therefore has no legal basis. Nevertheless, should the Consultative Assembly simply declare that the fabricated “National” Assembly be canceled, it would be defying the March 1 edict and violating the law—yet that too would be a positive step, a meritorious deed. Of course, it is still too early to pass judgment on the Consultative Assembly, as we must wait a few more days to see how it responds to the chairman’s “consultation.”

One thing, however, is certain: since the widespread popular opposition erupted, even ardent proponents of “constitutional monarchy” have begun to worry about our monarch, urging him not to place around his neck the noose known as the “pigsty parliament,” lest Yuan Shikai come seeking a scapegoat. It is therefore quite possible that our monarch may now retreat. Yet neither he nor his entourage will ever allow the people to gain even the slightest bit of power without themselves suffering the slightest loss.

The latest evidence of this can be seen in their labeling of legitimate public criticism as “unfounded attacks.” They claim: “Under wartime conditions, it is inevitable that no general elections can be held in occupied areas.” Two years ago, the Central Committee of the Kuomintang had resolved to convene the National Assembly within one year after the end of hostilities and to implement constitutional governance. Some critics at the time dismissed this as too late. When the committee later proposed convening the National Assembly as soon as the military situation stabilized, given that the complete end of hostilities might be delayed and that order could not necessarily be restored quickly even after the fighting ceased, those same critics again launched “unfounded attacks.” Such tactics have left our monarch in a difficult position.

However, the Chinese people must teach Chiang Kai-shek and his circle a lesson: any deception that violates the will of the people, regardless of how it is presented or carried out, is absolutely unacceptable. What the Chinese people demand is the immediate implementation of democratic reforms—such as releasing political prisoners, abolishing secret police forces, granting freedom to the people, and recognizing the legal status of all political parties. You have done none of this, yet you continue to play games over the timing of a so‑called National Assembly—a ploy that would not fool even a three-year-old child. Without serious, fundamental democratic reforms, every so‑called congress or meeting will inevitably end up consigned to the dustbin of history. Whether you call it “unfounded attack” or any other form of deception, it must be resolutely, thoroughly, and completely dismantled; not a trace of it should be allowed to remain. The reason is simple: it is deception.

The question of whether or not to hold a National Assembly is one thing; the need for basic democratic reforms is another. The former may be postponed for the time being, but the latter cannot be delayed any longer. Our chairman and his associates have long advocated “early” return of power to the people—so why not also push for the early implementation of certain essential democratic reforms? liixl:!

Gentlemen of the National Assembly, as I write these final lines, I must acknowledge that the Chinese Communists have not actually “launched unfounded attacks” against you; they have merely raised a single question. Shouldn’t you at least respond to it? 8.