1. The Fourth Commentary on the White Paper: Why Discuss the White Paper?
Key Points of the U.S. White Paper Regarding 1
The U.S. White Paper and Acheson’s Letter: The Fourth Commentary on the White Paper
Editorial Articles
And they published ~j They published ~ August 28, 1949
In discussing the key points of the U.S. White Paper, we have already offered our critique in three editorials ([An Inevitable Confession], [Shake Off Illusions, Prepare for Struggle], and [Farewell, John Leighton Stuart]). These critiques have attracted widespread attention and debate among all democratic parties, people’s organizations, newspapers, schools, and various sectors of the democratic community across the country, resulting in numerous accurate and insightful statements, speeches, and commentaries. Various symposiums dedicated to examining the White Paper are currently underway, and the overall discussion continues to unfold. The scope of this discourse encompasses Sino-U.S. relations, Sino-Soviet relations, Sino-foreign relations over the past century, the interplay between the Chinese revolution and global revolutionary forces, the relationship between the Kuomintang reactionaries and the Chinese people, the stance that democratic parties, people’s organizations, and democratic figures should adopt in the anti-imperialist struggle, the attitude that liberals or so-called democratic individualists ought to maintain in both domestic and international affairs, and how to counter the new schemes of imperialism, among other topics. This phenomenon is highly commendable and profoundly educational.
Today, the Chinese revolution and the U.S. White Paper are being discussed worldwide. This is no accident; it underscores the immense significance of the Chinese revolution in the broader context of world history. For the Chinese people, our revolution has fundamentally triumphed—fourth commentary on the white paper two three two three.
However, until now, we have not had a comprehensive opportunity to thoroughly examine the intricate relationships between this revolution and its internal and external dimensions. Such a discussion is essential, and the occasion has now presented itself through the examination of the U.S. White Paper. Previously, such an opportunity was lacking because the revolution had not yet achieved decisive victory; reactionary forces at home and abroad had isolated the major cities from the liberated areas; moreover, the development of the revolution had not yet fully exposed the various conflicting aspects involved. Now, however, more than half of China has been liberated, all facets of these internal and external contradictions have become apparent, and coincidentally, the United States has released its White Paper, thus providing precisely the forum needed for this dialogue. The White Paper is an anti-revolutionary document that openly reveals U.S. imperialist interference in China. In this respect, it demonstrates that imperialism has gone off course. The great victory of the Chinese revolution has compelled one faction within the U.S. imperialist camp—one group—to respond to attacks from another faction by publicly disclosing certain factual materials concerning their opposition to the Chinese people and drawing counter-conclusions, lest they risk being marginalized. Open exposure has replaced concealment, which is precisely what signifies imperialism’s deviation from its usual path. Just a few weeks ago, prior to the publication of the White Paper, despite the daily implementation of counter-revolutionary measures by the imperialist governments, their public pronouncements and official documents were consistently laced with moral rhetoric, or at least a veneer of morality, never venturing into outright truth-telling. The cunning British Empire and several smaller imperialist states continue to operate in this manner even today. By contrast, the declining U.S. imperialist establishment—represented by Truman, Marshall, Acheson, Stuart, and others—who simultaneously face popular resistance domestically and internal factional strife—has come to recognize that adopting a strategy of partial, albeit public, disclosure of truths and engaging in open debate with their adversaries is both necessary and feasible. Through this approach, they aim to persuade their rivals so as to perpetuate what they regard as their own superior methods of counter-revolution. It has thus devolved into a contest between two factions: one claiming its tactics are best, the other asserting the same. As the dispute intensifies, one side suddenly unveils…

a trove of previously employed stratagems under the banner of the “White Paper.”

In this way, the White Paper has transformed into an invaluable educational resource for the Chinese people. For many years, regarding certain issues—particularly those pertaining to the nature of imperialism and socialism—what we communists have maintained often remained met with skepticism among some segments of the Chinese population, who tended to view our assertions with a degree of doubt—half believing, half disbelieving.
This situation underwent a marked transformation after August 5, 1949. Acheson stepped forward; speaking in his capacity as U.S. Secretary of State, he articulated views that, in terms of both substance and conclusions, closely aligned with those previously advanced by us communists and other progressive elements. Consequently, such claims could no longer be dismissed lightly, opening the eyes of countless individuals to the true nature of the matter at hand.
and everyone everyone everyone fourth commentary on the white paper three three five
In the opening passage of his letter to President Truman—the preface to the White Paper—Acheson recounts the process of compiling the document. He asserts that this White Paper stands apart for its objectivity and candor: “It is a frank record of extremely complex problems confronting a great nation during one of the most trying periods of its history—a nation with which the United States has long enjoyed exceptionally close ties. Not a single item was omitted simply because it contained criticism of our policies or might serve as grounds for future reproach. The inherent strength of our system lies in the government’s responsiveness to informed, critical public opinion. It is precisely this kind of discerning, constructive criticism that both right-wing regimes and communist governments alike find intolerable and cannot abide.” Acheson goes on to note that certain bonds do exist between the peoples of China and the United States. With concerted effort over the past seventy-five years, these ties could potentially develop into relationships ranging from cordial to exceedingly intimate. However, he acknowledges that such connections have been severely hampered—both historically and presently—by the estrangement imposed between the two nations through the machinations of their respective reactionary forces. Moreover, the widespread dissemination of falsehoods and malicious propaganda by these reactionary elements has further eroded any genuine affinity between the two peoples. Thus, when Acheson speaks of “exceptionally close ties,” he is referring not to the peoples themselves, but to the reactionary elites of both countries. Here, Acheson fails to remain objective or candid, conflating the relationship between the two peoples with that between their ruling classes. For the Chinese people, the triumph of the revolution and the defeat of the Chinese reactionaries represent an unprecedentedly joyous chapter in their national history; the present moment constitutes a period of unparalleled elation. Conversely, for Truman, Marshall, Acheson, Stuart, and other U.S. reactionaries, as well as Chiang Kai-shek, Kong Xiangxi, Soong Tzu-wen, Chen Lifu, Li Zongren, Bai Chongxi, and their Chinese counterparts, this era is indeed “one of the most distressing periods” in their lives. As for the claim that the Communist-led government represents an “extreme regime,” there is indeed some truth to it. This government exercises dictatorship or autocracy over both internal and external reactionaries, affording them absolutely no freedom to engage in counter-revolutionary activities. Reactionaries naturally resent this and denounce it as an “extreme regime.” Yet, in reality, the People’s Government’s mandate to suppress reactionaries is precisely what defines its character. This authority is enshrined in our program and will likewise be codified in our future constitution. For a victorious people, it is as indispensable as food and clothing, an essential safeguard—an enduring bulwark—until both foreign imperialism and domestic class enemies are utterly eradicated. The more vehemently reactionaries rail against the “extreme regime,” the more it comes to be seen as a precious asset. Nevertheless, Acheson’s assertion contains a significant element of error. The people’s democratic dictatorship led by the Communist Party is not authoritarian or dictatorial internally; rather, it is democratic. This government belongs to the people themselves, who must respectfully heed its guidance, while simultaneously serving as teachers to one another through self-education and self-criticism. Acheson’s characterization of a “right-wing extreme regime” overlooks the fact that, following the collapse of the fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan, the U.S. government became the first of its kind globally. All bourgeois governments—including those reactionary regimes shielded by imperialist powers—are structured along similar lines. Yugoslavia’s Tito regime joined this cohort. China, having overthrown the Chiang Kai-shek regime and established its own government, thereby exited this category of regimes. The bourgeoisie, as a social class, comprises only a small segment of society, and its interests are inherently opposed to those of the broad masses. Governments that implement “dictatorship” toward the people while professing “democracy” internally invariably reflect the narrow, self-serving agendas of the ruling elite. Hitler, Mussolini (Tojo), Franco (Chiang Kai-shek, etc.) dispensed with—or deliberately ignored—the facade of internal democracy because escalating class tensions made it more expedient to abandon it altogether, lest the populace turn that very instrument against them. The U.S. government still retains a semblance of democratic governance, but it has been drastically curtailed and significantly diluted by reactionary forces, falling far short of the standards set during the administrations of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. Further intensification of class conflict would inevitably drive this vestige of democracy entirely beyond reach. As evident from Acheson’s remarks, his initial statements were riddled with inaccuracies. This is inevitable, given his status as a representative of the reactionary camp. Turning to his claim that the White Paper constitutes a “frank record,” we observe that while a measure of candor is indeed present, it is also accompanied by significant omissions. What Acheson and his allies subjectively perceive as advantageous to their own faction is disclosed, whereas opposing perspectives are systematically suppressed. This ostentatious display of transparency serves merely as a tactical ploy. (Xinhua News Agency, Peiping, August 18)