1. Mr. Hamm asked: Does the Kuomintang army still intend to attack Yan'an?

Answer: The plan to attack Yan'an was decided long ago, and they will still fight, but we have a great possibility of smashing the invading army.

2. Mr. Roderick asked: Is the domestic situation in China going to continue fighting? How can negotiations be resumed?

Answer: It will continue fighting, because the other side wants to fight.

"The Chinese Communist Party's current policy remains respecting the line of the Political Consultative Conference [1] and striving to restore the position of the January ceasefire agreement [2]. The illegal and divisive National Assembly [3] now being convened should be dissolved."

[4] Now all the agreements of the Political Consultative Conference have been sabotaged by them; politically they are convening the "National Assembly," and militarily they are launching a full-scale offensive.

3. Mr. Roderick asked: Is the Chinese Communist Party no longer bound by the ceasefire agreement now? Previously you always used the excuse of being attacked before fighting back. Now can you launch attacks wherever any Communist Party army has the strength to do so?

Answer: The ceasefire agreement was sabotaged by others long ago, so of course we are no longer bound by it. Future negotiations will depend on the outcome of the war.

4. Mr. Hamm asked: Will this mean that in the future there are only two possibilities: either the Communist forces become very strong, or become very weak?

Answer: That possibility is very likely.

5. Mr. Roderick asked: A U.S. State Department spokesman said the reasons U.S. Marines are stationed in China are: (1) to protect the safety of the family members and property of U.S. personnel in the Executive Headquarters for Military Mediation; (2) to ensure the railway between Tianjin and Tanggu remains open so that U.S. personnel of the Executive Headquarters in Beiping can receive supplies. Since this is the case, why doesn't the Chinese Communist Party withdraw its personnel from the Executive Headquarters, causing the Executive Headquarters to cease to exist entirely? Wouldn't that remove their pretext and be a wise move?

Answer: There are Americans in Harbin and Yan'an right now. Wouldn't it be better if the United States simply expanded its garrison to Harbin and Yan'an? The statements of the U.S. State Department spokesman are just a pretext.

6. Mr. Hamm asked: What exactly is the reason for preserving the Executive Headquarters?

Answer: The Americans do not want to withdraw, so we have not wanted to withdraw either. Whether we will withdraw in the future is something we have not yet considered.

7. Mr. Roderick asked: The Americans fully support Chiang Kai-shek because the Chinese Communist Party is xenophobic, just as was the case in 1927.

Answer: The Chinese Communist Party is not xenophobic; people like Mr. Roderick are very welcome. As for people like Hurley [5], we will oppose them, but it's not that we won't give them anything to eat—millet rice will still be provided. We just won't hold welcome meetings, and won't clap when he speaks, hoping to send people like him out of China. Now there are two kinds of Americans. Ma Haide, Sidney Rittenberg, and Agnes Smedley [6] are good Americans. There is also Anna Louise Strong [7] in Yan'an, who is also a good person. We welcome people like them. Not only such people, but even those who oppose us, we are willing to let them come to the liberated areas to have a look. As long as they make relatively fair reports, it benefits us. I hope all journalists will become the spokespersons of the people, not the spokespersons of the reactionaries.

8. Mr. Roderick asked: Are preparations being made to convene a People's Representative Conference?

Answer: We have seen your telegraphic dispatch, and your attitude is relatively fair. The People's Representative Conference has not yet been convened. If the Kuomintang army attacks Yan'an, it will not be convened; if they do not attack, it will not be convened either. It will certainly be convened in the future because it is a conference of the people's representatives; at the very least, it must sum up some work experience.

9. Mr. Hamm asked: The Communist Party opposes the "Sino-American Commercial Treaty" [8]. Why?

Answer: The Sino-American Commercial Treaty is an unequal treaty. It permits Americans to freely purchase houses, land, build factories, and open shops in China. American ships can navigate into China's inland rivers. Previously, in the "Twenty-One Demands" [9], the Japanese demanded to do these things in a part of China—Manchuria [10]—and as a result, they met with opposition from the entire Chinese people.

Mr. Hamm asked: Britain's inland rivers also allow American ships to go there; Chinese people can also buy houses and open factories abroad. Why do you say the Sino-American Commercial Treaty is an unequal treaty?

Answer: Many years from now, when China has capital and ships, it will be possible to go abroad, but it is not possible now.

Mr. Hamm asked: I am planning to buy a house in Beiping. Will it be confiscated in the future?

Answer: It won't be confiscated. For people like you, we could give you several houses to live in.

Mr. Hamm asked: In the eyes of the Chinese, an equal treaty means not giving China's interests to foreign countries, while enjoying foreign countries' interests.

Answer: A treaty like the one you described is also an unequal treaty.

Mr. Roderick asked: Why doesn't the Chinese Communist Party openly express opposition to the Sino-American Commercial Treaty? If the Communist Party comes to power in the future, will it abrogate this treaty?

Answer: We openly state that we will certainly abrogate it in the future. This treaty is not being implemented in the liberated areas now.

"We express opposition to the Sino-American Commercial Treaty. November 4th is China's new national humiliation commemoration day. This commercial treaty should be abrogated, and an equal commercial treaty should be concluded instead."

[11] 10. Mr. Roderick asked: In February this year, the Chairman said that the world situation was favorable to the development of the democratic movement. Is this still the case now? Answer: It has risen even higher now. From February this year to now, what the U.S. imperialist elements have done entirely goes against the will of the people and is about to fail. There is a distinction between U.S. reactionaries and the American people. The reactionaries want to dominate the world, which will inevitably arouse opposition from people all over the world. There are reactionaries in every country in the world. They violate the will of the majority of the people, suppress democracy, and oppress the people, and they will certainly meet with the people's opposition. Several months ago, the American people still did not recognize the U.S. reactionary policies, such as stationing troops in China, interfering in China's internal affairs, and supporting Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists—these are all reactionary policies. Now American journalists like Snow [12] and Smedley have written articles expressing opposition. On July 7th this year, we issued a declaration [13] criticizing U.S. and Chiang policies. At that time, people both at home and abroad said it was somewhat excessive. But now very few people are defending U.S. policy. Steele [14] no longer defends U.S. policy, and White [15] wrote a book criticizing the Kuomintang. Now the U.S. anti-Soviet stance is a smokescreen; it wants to dominate the world, first harming the interests of China and Britain, and then affecting the intermediate zone between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, however, is absorbed in domestic construction and is not affected by it at all. Therefore, this policy is bound to fail. The American people are also turning left and do not like the current policies. The recent election is proof of this: if they liked the Democratic Party's policies, they would surely have voted Democratic. The reason they voted Republican was that the Republican Party had been out of power for twelve years, and they wanted to try a change; there may be changes within ten years. The British people are also turning left; forty percent of Labour MPs oppose Bevin's [16] policies. I estimate that within a year to a year and a half, the opponents of Bevin and Attlee [17] within the British Labour Party could become the majority. The Chinese people are also turning left. The Communists here in Yan'an live in earthen caves and eat millet—what assets do we have? Yet in five months we have wiped out thirty-nine brigades of the Kuomintang regular army. Good journalists should not believe the lies about being anti-Soviet. In the United States today, the labor movement is still divided, with two or three factions—not unified organizationally or politically. But there is hope for the future; the United States will certainly achieve socialism in time. Only China faces relatively greater difficulties, and there will likely be twists and turns ahead. In short, the worldwide democratic movement is on the rise.

11. Mr. Chen Yifan asked: The Communist Party can no longer accept U.S. mediation of the KMT-CPC conflict. Would it welcome British mediation?

Answer: Britain now lacks the courage to oppose U.S. policy. It follows the U.S. lead—what use could it be? If it wants to oppose the U.S., the U.S. is not easy to deal with. China's problems must still be solved by the Chinese themselves, but we welcome foreign technical assistance.

12. Mr. Hamm asked: What is the Chinese Communist Party's attitude on the Hong Kong issue?

Answer: We are not raising a demand for its immediate return now. China is so vast, and many places are not yet well managed—why rush to claim this small piece of land first? It can be resolved through consultation in the future.

Printed based on the transcript of the conversation preserved in the Central Archives.

Notes
On May 7, Japan issued an ultimatum.

On May 9, the Yuan Shikai government acceded to these Japanese demands, with the exception of part of Group Five, which were declared "to be reserved for future negotiation."

Subsequently, due to the unanimous opposition of the entire Chinese people and the conflicting interests of the imperialist powers in China, these Japanese demands were not fully realized.

[10] Manchuria refers to the Northeast region of China.

[11] The words within quotation marks were made by Mao Zedong with the consent of journalist Hamden and others for publication.

[12] Edgar Snow (1905–1972) was a progressive American writer and journalist. He came to China in 1928, and in 1936, he traveled to the revolutionary base area in northern Shaanxi, where he interviewed Mao Zedong and other leaders of the Communist Party of China on multiple occasions. He revisited Yan'an for further interviews in 1939, during which Mao Zedong met with him and held discussions on the united front and international issues. In 1941, he was forced to leave China after being attacked by the Kuomintang reactionaries. He returned to China again between 1942 and 1943.

--- Notes

[1] The Political Consultative Conference; see also note [8] on p. 143 of this volume.
[2] See note [7] on p. 143 of this volume.
[3] See note [14] on p. 201 of this volume.
[4] The content within quotation marks was authorized by Mao Zedong for publication by the journalists, including Hamm.
[5] Hurley, a member of the U.S. Republican Party. He was appointed U.S. Ambassador to China in November 1944. Due to his support for Chiang Kai-shek's anti-communist policies, he met with firm opposition from the Chinese people and left his post in November 1945.
[6] Ma Haide (1910-1988), originally of Lebanese descent, born in the United States. He came to Shanghai, China, in 1933 to engage in medical work, reached the Northern Shaanxi revolutionary base area in 1936, and joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1937. In 1946 he served as medical advisor to the Chinese Communist Party delegation at the Executive Headquarters for Military Mediation in Beiping. Sidney Rittenberg (b. 1921), an American progressive. He came to China in 1945. In July and October 1946, he worked on editing and broadcasting English-language radio scripts at Xinhua Radio in Zhangjiakou and Yan'an respectively. Agnes Smedley (1890-1950), an American progressive writer and journalist. She came to China in late 1928 as a special correspondent for the Frankfurter Zeitung and participated in the progressive cultural movement in Shanghai. In 1937 she went to Yan'an to interview leaders of the Chinese Communist Party. She later followed the New Fourth Army in campaigns across Central and East China for two years. She returned to the United States in 1941.
[7] Anna Louise Strong (1885-1970), an American progressive writer and journalist. She visited China for the fifth time in June 1946 and entered Yan'an at the end of July of the same year. She left Yan'an in February 1947.
[8] The Sino-American Commercial Treaty refers to the "Sino-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation" signed by the Kuomintang government and the U.S. government in Nanjing on November 4, 1946. This treaty, which substantially betrayed China's sovereignty, contained 30 articles. Its main contents were: first, Americans had the right to reside, travel, and engage in commerce, manufacturing, processing, science, education, religion, charitable activities, and professions not specifically reserved for Chinese citizens within "the entire territory" of China, as well as the right to lease land. Should any third country be permitted to explore and develop China's mineral resources, the U.S. would also enjoy the same rights. Americans in China would receive the same treatment as Chinese citizens in terms of economic rights. Second, U.S. goods in China, in terms of taxation, sale, distribution, or use, would enjoy treatment no less favorable than that accorded to the goods of any third country in China. No prohibition or restriction could be imposed on China's import of any U.S. goods, products, or manufactured articles, or on any goods shipped from China to the U.S. Third, U.S. ships could freely navigate in any open ports, places, or territorial waters of China, and their personnel and goods had the freedom to transit through Chinese territory "via the most convenient routes." U.S. ships, including warships, could enter "any port, place, or territorial water of China not open to foreign commerce or navigation" under the pretext of encountering "any distress."
[9] The "Twenty-One Demands" were secret terms aimed at gaining exclusive control over China, presented by Japanese imperialism to the government of Yuan Shikai on January 18, 1915, taking advantage of the opportunity during World War I. These demands consisted of five groups, totaling twenty-one articles. The main contents were: 1. Japan would take over and expand the rights Germany had seized in Shandong; 2. Recognition of various Japanese privileges in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia; 3. Conversion of the Han-Ye-Ping Company into a Sino-Japanese joint venture; 4. China's coastal harbors, bays, and islands would not be ceded or leased to any third power; 5. Chinese political, financial, police, and military power would be placed under Japanese control, allowing Japan to build major railways linking Hubei, Jiangxi, Zhejiang, and Guangdong provinces, and giving Japan priority rights in Fujian for railway construction, mining exploitation, and harbor improvement.


[13] This refers to the "Declaration of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China Commemorating the Ninth Anniversary of the July 7 Incident," issued on July 7, 1946.


[14] Steele, a China correspondent for the *New York Herald Tribune*.


[15] Theodore H. White, born in 1915, was an American journalist and writer. He served as the Chongqing correspondent for *Time* magazine from 1939 to 1945 and visited Yan'an in 1944. In 1946, he co-authored *Thunder Out of China* with Annalee Jacoby, a book that was banned for a time in Kuomintang-controlled areas due to its exposure of KMT corruption during the War of Resistance against Japan.


[16] Ernest Bevin (1881–1951) was a British statesman, who at the time served as British Foreign Secretary.


[17] Clement Attlee (1883–1967) was a British Labour Party leader, who at the time served as British Prime Minister.