103.9166/5975: Airgram
The Chargé in China (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 11—11 a.m.]
A–40. Embassy’s 1444, August 13, 11 a.m. Hanson Baldwin’s article in the August Reader’s Digest continues to be a subject of lively discussion in Chinese circles and of angry comment in the controlled Chinese press.
As an example of the reaction among the more liberal circles, it is reliably reported that Dr. Sun Fo recently made a speech at a Legislative Yuan meeting in which he criticized the Chinese Government’s present lack of guiding aims and principles and cited in support of his criticism Pearl Buck’s article in Life, Bisson’s article and the two Baldwin articles; Sun Fo pointed out that as Mrs. Buck is well known as a staunch friend of China her criticism cannot be deemed unfriendly and that as she knows China well she cannot be dismissed as uninformed. According to one informant, the articles have to some extent strengthened the hands of the liberals within the Chinese Government by reinforcing their criticism of Fascist trends and of the resultant lowering of morale within the administration.
I have had some informal discussion of the Digest article, and also of the other articles, with a number of Chinese officials, at my own initiative on occasions which seemed appropriate and sometimes on their initiative. Among these officials were Dr. Kung, Sun Fo, K. C. Wu (Acting Foreign Minister) and Wang Shih-chieh (Secretary [Page 107] General of the Central Planning Board and former Minister of Information and Minister of Education). In reply to inquiries as to the cause of this “wave of criticism” in the United States, I have suggested, when it seemed likely that frankness would be appreciated, that any out-of-focus statements in the articles might be in part a result of a censorship which prevented comprehensive and accurate information regarding the situation in China from reaching the United States and other countries abroad. It is my impression that the officials with whom I talked have for the most part been inclined to find some validity in this point of view but there has so far come to our attention only one instance of any real relaxation of censorship. On August 16 or 17, the New York Times and the United Press correspondents were permitted to telegraph despatches in regard to the Kuomintang-Communist situation—the first despatches on that subject permitted release except for one reportedly very biased in favor of the Kuomintang which was written by the Chinese correspondent of Reuter’s by special permission and possibly by direction (Embassy’s despatch no. 1415, August 2, paragraph 2). The New York Times correspondent showed me his despatch as censored and while references to both the justified and unjustified complaints of the Communists against the administration were among the items deleted, the article on the whole gave a fairly good background picture of the situation.
Nothing, however, has occurred to alter our view that criticism in the American press of China, whether or not justified, cannot help but have adverse effects upon our relations until and unless the reactionary Chinese leaders acquire something of an objective point of view as to the realities of the world situation and the part that China is playing, or should play, therein. Indeed, in their present state of extreme sensitiveness, and with their deeply ingrained slavishness to considerations of face, the more justifiable the criticism may be the more likely is resentment to be increased.