August 18, 1949


It is understandable that the date chosen for the publication of the U.S.
White Paper was August 5, a time when Leighton Stuart
[1] had departed from Nanking for Washington but
had not yet arrived there, since Leighton Stuart is a symbol of the complete
defeat of the U.S. policy of aggression. Leighton Stuart is an American born
in China; he has fairly wide social connections and spent many years running
missionary schools in China, he once sat in a Japanese gaol during the War
of Resistance; he used to pretend to love both the United States and China
and was able to deceive quite a number of Chinese. Hence, he was picked out
by George C. Marshall, was made U.S. ambassador to China and became a celebrity
in the Marshall group. In the eyes of the Marshall group he had only one
fault, namely, that the whole period when he was ambassador to China as an
exponent of their policy was the very period in which that policy was utterly
defeated by the Chinese people; that was no small responsibility. It is only
natural that the White Paper, which is designed to evade this responsibility,
should have been published at a time when Leighton Stuart was on his way
to Washington but had not yet arrived.

The war to turn China into a U.S. colony, a war in which the United States
of America supplies the money and guns and Chiang Kai-shek the men to fight
for the United States and slaughter the Chinese people, has been an important
component of the U.S. imperialist policy of world-wide aggression since World
War II. The U.S. policy of aggression has several targets. The three main
targets are Europe, Asia and the Americas. China, the centre of gravity in
Asia, is a large country with a population of 475 million; by seizing China,
the United States would possess all of Asia. With its Asian front consolidated,
U.S. imperialism could concentrate its forces on attacking Europe. U.S.
imperialism considers its front in the Americas relatively secure. These
are the smug over-all calculations of the U.S. aggressors.

But in the first place, the American people and the peoples of the world
do not want war. Secondly, the attention of the United States has largely
been absorbed by the awakening of the peoples of Europe, by the rise of the
People's Democracies in Eastern Europe, and particularly by the towering
presence of the Soviet Union, this unprecedentedly powerful bulwark of peace
bestriding Europe and Asia, and by its strong resistance to the U.S. policy
of aggression. Thirdly, and this is most important, the Chinese people have
awakened, and the armed forces and the organized strength of the people under
the leadership of the Communist Party of China have become more powerful
than ever before. Consequently, the ruling clique of U.S. imperialism has
been prevented from adopting a policy of direct, large-scale armed attacks
on China and instead has adopted a policy of helping Chiang Kai-shek fight
the civil war.

U.S. naval, ground and air forces did participate in the war in China. There
were U.S. naval bases in Tsingtao, Shanghai and Taiwan. U.S. troops were
stationed in Peiping, Tientsin, Tangshan, Chinwangtao, Tsingtao, Shanghai
and Nanking. The U.S. air force controlled all of China's air space and took
aerial photographs of all China's strategic areas for military maps. At the
town of Anping near Peiping, at Chiutai near Changchun, at Tangshan and in
the Eastern Shantung Peninsula, U.S. troops and other military personnel
clashed with the People's Liberation Army and on several occasions were
captured.[2] Chennault's air fleet took an extensive part
in the civil war.[3] Besides transporting troops for Chiang
Kai-shek, the U.S. air force bombed and sank the cruiser Chungking,
which had mutinied against the Kuomintang.[4]All these
were acts of direct participation in the war, although they fell short of
an open declaration of war and were not large in scale, and although the
principal method of U.S. aggression was the large-scale supply of money,
munitions and advisers to help Chiang Kai-shek fight the civil war.

The use of this method by the United States was determined by the objective
situation in China and the rest of the world, and not by any lack of desire
on the part of the Truman-Marshall group, the ruling clique of U.S. imperialism,
to launch direct aggression against China. Moreover, at the outset of its
help to Chiang Kai-shek in fighting the civil war, a crude farce was staged
in which the United States appeared as mediator in the conflict between the
Kuomintang and the Communist Party; this was an attempt to soften up the
Communist Party of China, deceive the Chinese people and thus gain control
of all China without fighting. The peace negotiations failed, the deception
fell through and the curtain rose on the war.

Liberals or "democratic individualists" who cherish illusions about the United
States and have short memories! Please look at Acheson's own words:

When peace came the United States was confronted with three possible alternatives
in China: (1) it could have pulled out lock, stock and barrel; (2) it could
have intervened militarily on a major scale to assist the Nationalists to
destroy the Communists, (3) it could, while assisting the Nationalists to
assert their authority over as much of China as possible, endeavor to avoid
a civil war by working for a compromise between the two sides.

Why didn't the United States adopt the first of these policies? Acheson says:

The first alternative would, and I believe American public opinion at the
time so felt, have represented an abandonment of our international
responsibilities and of our traditional policy of friendship for China before
we had made a determined effort to be of assistance.

So that's how things stand: the "international responsibilities" of the United
States and its "traditional policy of friendship for China" are nothing but
intervention against China. Intervention is called assuming international
responsibilities and showing friendship for China; as to non-intervention,
it simply won't do. Here Acheson defiles U.S. public opinion; his is the
"public opinion" of Wall Street, not the public opinion of the American people.

Why didn't the United States adopt the second of these policies? Acheson
says:

The second alternative policy, while it may look attractive theoretically
and in retrospect, was wholly impracticable. The Nationalists had been unable
to destroy the Communists during the 10 years before the war. Now after the
war the Nationalists were, as indicated above, weakened, demoralized, and
unpopular. They had quickly dissipated their popular support and prestige
in the areas liberated from the Japanese by the conduct of their civil and
military officials. The Communists on the other hand were much stronger than
they had ever been and were in control of most of North China. Because of
the ineffectiveness of the Nationalist forces which was later to be tragically
demonstrated, the Communists probably could have been dislodged only by American
arms. It is obvious that the American people would not have sanctioned such
a colossal commitment of our armies in 1945 or later. We therefore came to
the third alternative policy. . . .

What a splendid idea! The United States supplies the money and guns and Chiang
Kai-shek the men to fight for the United States and slaughter the Chinese
people, to "destroy the Communists" and turn China into a U.S. colony, so
that the United States may fulfil its "international responsibilities" and
carry out its "traditional policy of friendship for China".

Although the Kuomintang was corrupt and incompetent, "demoralized and unpopular",
the United States nevertheless supplied it with money and guns and made it
fight. Direct armed intervention was all right, "theoretically". It also
seems all right "in retrospect" to the rulers of the United States. For direct
armed intervention would really have been interesting and it might "look
attractive". But it would not have worked in practice, for "it is obvious
that the American people would not have sanctioned" it. Not that the imperialist
group of Truman, Marshall, Acheson and their like did not desire it -- they
very much desired it -- but the situation in China, in the United States
and in the world as a whole (a point Acheson does not mention) did not permit
it; they had to give up their preference and take the third way.

Let those Chinese who believe that "victory is possible even without
international help" listen. Acheson is giving you a lesson. Acheson is a
good teacher, giving lessons free of charge, and he is telling the whole
truth with tireless zeal and great candour. The United States refrained from
dispatching large forces to attack China, not because the U.S. government
didn't want to, but because it had worries. First worry: the Chinese people
would oppose it, and the U.S. government was afraid of getting hopelessly
bogged down in a quagmire. Second worry: the American people would oppose
it, and so the U.S. government dared not order mobilization. Third worry:
the people of the Soviet Union, of Europe and of the rest of the world would
oppose it, and the U.S. government would face universal condemnation. Acheson's
charming candour has its limits and he is unwilling to mention the third
worry. The reason is he is afraid of losing face before the Soviet Union,
he is afraid that the Marshall Plan in Europe,
[5] which is already a failure despite pretences
to the contrary, may end dismally in total collapse.

Let those Chinese who are short-sighted, muddle-headed liberals or democratic
individualists listen. Acheson is giving you a lesson; he is a good teacher
for you. He has made a clean sweep of your fancied U.S. humanity, justice
and virtue. Isn't that so? Can you find a trace of humanity, justice or virtue
in the White Paper or in Acheson's Letter of Transmittal?

True, the United States has science and technology. But unfortunately they
are in the grip of the capitalists, not in the hands of the people, and are
used to exploit and oppress the people at home and to perpetrate aggression
and to slaughter people abroad. There is also "democracy" in the United States.
But unfortunately it is only another name for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
by itself. The United States has plenty of money. But unfortunately it is
willing to give money only to the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries, who are
rotten to the core. The United States, it is said, is and will be quite willing
to give money to its fifth column in China, but is unwilling to give it to
the ordinary run of liberals or democratic individualists, who are much too
bookish and do not know how to appreciate favours, and naturally it is even
more unwilling to give money to the Communists. Money may be given, but only
conditionally. What is the condition? Follow the United States. The Americans
have sprinkled some relief flour in Peiping, Tientsin and Shanghai to see
who will stoop to pick it up. Like Chiang Tai Kung fishing,
[6] they have cast the line for the fish who want
to be caught. But he who swallows food handed out in contempt
[7] will get a bellyache.

We Chinese have backbone. Many who were once liberals or democratic
individualists have stood up to the U.S. imperialists and their running dogs,
the Kuomintang reactionaries. Wen Yi-to rose to his full height and smote
the table, angrily faced the Kuomintang pistols and died rather than
submit.[8] Chu Tse-ching, though seriously ill,
starved to death rather than accept U.S. "relief
food".[9] Han Yu of the Tang Dynasty wrote a "Eulogy
of Po Yi", [10] praising a man with quite a few
"democratic individualist" ideas, who shirked his duty towards the people
of his own country, deserted his post and opposed the people's war of liberation
of that time, led by King Wu. He lauded the wrong man. We should write eulogies
of Wen Yi-to and Chu Tse-ching who demonstrated the heroic spirit of our
nation.

What matter if we have to face some difficulties? Let them blockade us! Let
them blockade us for eight or ten years! By that time all of China's problems
will have been solved. Will the Chinese cower before difficulties when they
are not afraid even of death? Lao Tzu said, "The people fear not death, why
threaten them with it?" [11] U.S. imperialism
and its running dogs, the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries, have not only
"threatened" us with death but actually put many of us to death. Besides
people like Wen Yi-to, they have killed millions of Chinese in the last three
years with U.S. carbines, machine-guns, mortars, bazookas, howitzers, tanks
and bombs dropped from aeroplanes. This situation is now coming to an end.
They have been defeated. It is we who are going in to attack them, not they
who are coming out to attack us. They will soon be finished. True, the few
problems left to us, such as blockade, unemployment, famine, inflation and
rising prices, are difficulties, but we have already begun to breathe more
easily than in the past three years. We have come triumphantly through the
ordeal of the last three years, why can't we overcome these few difficulties
of today? Why can't we live without the United States?

When the People's Liberation Army crossed the Yangtse River, the U.S. colonial
government at Nanking fled helter-skelter. Yet His Excellency Ambassador
Stuart sat tight, watching wide-eyed, hoping to set up shop under a new signboard
and to reap some profit. But what did he see? Apart from the People's Liberation
Army marching past, column after column, and the workers, peasants and students
rising in hosts, he saw something else -- the Chinese liberals or democratic
individualists turning out in force, shouting slogans and talking revolution
together with the workers, peasants, soldiers and students. In short, he
was left out in the cold, "standing all alone, body and shadow comforting
each other". [12] There was nothing more for him
to do, and he had to take to the road, his briefcase under his arm.

There are still some intellectuals and other people in China who have muddled
ideas and illusions about the United States. Therefore we should explain
things to them, win them over, educate them and unite with them, so they
will come over to the side of the people and not fall into the snares set
by imperialism. But the prestige of U.S. imperialism among the Chinese people
is completely bankrupt, and the White Paper is a record of its bankruptcy.
Progressives should make good use of the White Paper to educate the Chinese
people.

Leighton Stuart has departed and the White Paper has arrived. Very good.
Very good. Both events are worth celebrating.

NOTES


1. John Leighton Stuart, who was born in China in 1876,
was always a loyal agent of U.S. cultural aggression in China. He started
missionary work in China in 1905 and in 1919 became president of Yenching
University, which was established by the United States in Peking. On July
11, 1946, he was appointed U.S. ambassador to China. He actively supported
the Kuomintang reactionaries in prosecuting the civil war and carried out
various political intrigues against the Chinese people. On August 2, 1949,
because all the efforts of U.S. imperialism to obstruct the victory of the
Chinese people's revolution had completely failed, Leighton Stuart had to
leave China quietly.

2. Following the Japanese surrender in 1945, the armed
forces of the United States, with the purpose of aggression against China's
territory and sovereignty and of interference in her domestic affairs, landed
in China and stationed themselves at Peiping, Shanghai, Nanking, Tientsin,
Tangshan, Kaiping, Chinwangtao, Chinghai, Tsingtao and other places. In addition,
they repeatedly invaded the Liberated Areas. On July 29, 1946, U.S. troops
in Tientsin, in co-ordination with Chiang Kai-shek's bandit troops, assaulted
the town of Anping, Hsiangho County, Hopei Province; this is the Anping Incident
referred to in the text. On March 1, 1947, U.S. troops made a military
reconnaissance of the position of the People's Liberation Army at Hohsipao,
situated between Changchun and Chintai in northeastern China. On June 16,
1946, U.S. troops at Tangshan, Hopei Province, raided Sungchiaying and other
places; in July they raided Sanho Village, Luanhsien County, and Hsihonan
Village, Changli County, both near Tangshan. Of the numerous attacks on the
Eastern Shantung Peninsula, the most widely-known were two, one by U.S. aircraft
and warships on Langnuankou and Hsiaoli Island, Mouping County, on August
28, 1947, and the other by U.S. forces on Wanglintao Village, north of Chimo
County, on December 25, 1947 in co-ordination with Chiang Kai-shek's bandit
troops. In all these cases in which the U.S. forces committed acts of aggression
by invading the Liberated Areas, the Chinese People's Liberation Army or
the local people's armed forces took just action in self-defence.

3. Claire Lee Chennault was at one time U.S. adviser to
the Kuomintang government's air force. After the Japanese surrender, he organized
a group of the U.S. 14th Air Force personnel into an air transport corps
to help the Kuomintang fight the civil war. His air transport corps took
a direct part in the criminal reconnoitring and bombing of the Liberated
Areas.

4. See "On the Outrages by British Warships -- Statement
by the Spokesman of the General Headquarters of the Chinese People's Liberation
Army", Note 4, p. 403 of this volume.

5. On June 5, 1947, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall
made a speech at Harvard University, putting forward a plan for so-called
U.S. "aid" to rehabilitate Europe. The "European Recovery Programme" subsequently
drawn up by the U.S. government on the basis of the speech was known as the
"Marshall Plan".

6. Chiang Tai Kung lived in the Chou Dynasty. According
to a legend, he once fished in the Weishui River, holding a rod without hook
or bait three feet above the water, and saying, "The fish that is destined
to be caught will come up." (From Stories About King Wu's Expedition
Against the Yin Dynasty.)

7. "Food handed out in contempt" refers to alms handed
out as an insult. It is an allusion to a story in the Book of
Rites, which tells of a hungry man in the State of Chi, who would
rather starve to death than accept food given him insultingly.

8. Wen Yi-to (1899-1946), famed Chinese poet, scholar and
university professor. In 1943 he began to take an active part in the struggle
for democracy out of bitter hatred for the reaction and corruption of the
Chiang Kai-shek government. After the War of Resistance Against Japan, he
vigorously opposed the Kuomintang's conspiracy with U.S. imperialism to start
civil war against the people. On July 15, 1946, he was assassinated in Kunming
by Kuomintang thugs.

9. Chu Tse-ching (1898-1948) Chinese man of letters and
university professor. After the War of Resistance, he actively supported
the student movement against the Chiang Kai-shek regime. In June 1948 he
signed a declaration protesting against the revival of Japanese militarism,
which was being fostered by the United States, and rejecting "U.S. relief"
flour. He was then living in great poverty. He died in Peiping on August
12, 1948, from poverty and illness, but even on his death-bed he enjoined
his family not to buy the U.S. flour rationed by the Kuomintang government.

10. Han Yu (768-824) was a famous writer of the Tang Dynasty.
"Eulogy of Po Yi" was a prose piece written by him. Po Yi, who lived towards
the end of the Yin Dynasty, opposed the expedition of King Wu of Chou against
the House of Yin. After the downfall of the House of Yin, he fled to the
Shouyang Mountain and starved to death rather than eat of Chou grain.

11. A quotation from Lao Tzu Chapter LXXIV.

12. A quotation from Li Mi's "Memorial to the Emperor".

Transcription by the Maoist Documentation Project.