This resolution of the Nanjing Executive Yuan makes no mention of either the January 1st statement by Chiang Kai-shek, the puppet president of Nanjing, calling for peace negotiations, or the January 14th statement by Chairman Mao Zedong of the Chinese Communist Party making the same call. It neither endorses one proposal while rejecting the other nor indicates any position on either; rather, it seems to suggest that neither the Kuomintang nor the Communists had put forward any proposals at all on those dates, and instead puts forth its own alternative. Such an approach is utterly incomprehensible.

In fact, the Nanjing Executive Yuan not only completely disregards the Communist Party’s January 14th proposal but also directly overturns the January 1st proposal of the puppet “president,” Chiang Kai-shek. In his January 1st appeal, Chiang stated: “As long as the Communist Party demonstrates genuine sincerity for peace and offers a clear commitment, the government will meet in good faith and be willing to discuss concrete measures to cease hostilities and restore peace.” Nineteen days later, however, a component of the very same government—the “Executive Yuan” of the 224 Warlord Nanjing regime—reversed the pronouncement of that government’s “president,” decreeing not “a meeting in good faith” but rather “an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, followed by the appointment of representatives to engage in peace talks.”

We would ask the gentlemen of the Nanjing Executive Yuan: Which is valid—their own proposal, or their “president’s”? Their “president” regarded the cessation of war and the restoration of peace as a single, unified objective, declaring that he would meet in open and honest fashion to discuss with the Communists the specific means of achieving it; whereas you have bifurcated war and peace into two separate matters, refusing to dispatch representatives to deliberate with us the practical modalities for halting hostilities, yet fancifully proposing first to “declare an unconditional ceasefire” and only thereafter to “dispatch representatives to conduct peace negotiations.” So which is correct: your proposal, or your “president’s”?

We maintain that the Nanjing puppet Executive Yuan has overstepped its authority. It lacks the competence to annul the puppet “president’s” recommendation and to substitute its own new proposal. We regard the Executive Yuan’s latest initiative as wholly unjustified.

After waging such a prolonged, large-scale, and brutal war, it is imperative that both sides send representatives to negotiate the fundamental terms of peace and to conclude a mutually agreed-upon ceasefire agreement if hostilities are to come to an end. This aspiration is shared not only by the general populace but also by many within the Kuomintang itself.

If, as stipulated in the Nanjing Executive Yuan’s baseless “resolution,” peace talks are to be precluded unless an immediate ceasefire is declared, then where, pray tell, lies the Kuomintang’s bona fide commitment to peace? The Executive Yuan has now issued its “resolution,” effectively closing the door to peace by making negotiations contingent upon prior disarmament.

Should negotiations proceed, the only way forward would be to rescind this unwarranted “resolution”—a course that would inevitably leave the Nanjing Nationalist reactionary regime trapped within its own self-imposed straitjacket, thereby exposing its lack of genuine intent to engage in peace talks with the opposing side.

One must ask: If the Nanjing authorities truly harbor such intent, why do they hesitate to discuss the concrete conditions for peace? Has not the conclusion that Nanjing’s peace overtures are spurious already been amply borne out?

A spokesperson for the Chinese Communist Party has observed that Nanjing has now descended into a state of lawlessness: the puppet president advances one proposal, while the puppet Executive Yuan proposes another—leaving the public at a loss as to whom they ought to address.