has been the view of his Administration, and the unquestioned view ever since I have known about it.

The President goes on to say that we do not intend to give military assistance or advice, that is matériel and military people, to the forces on Formosa, and he says why. He says that there are resources on that Island which are adequate to enable those on the island to obtain whatever necessary military supplies they believe they have to have. That is against a background of very considerable gifts on our part at a time when the Government on Formosa was recognized by everybody as the Government of China and was in control of a very large part of China. We gave vast amounts of military equipment to that government after the war up until 1948. In 1948 another act of Congress was passed, and 125 million dollars of military equipment was turned over.

That is not where the difficulty lies in maintaining the Island by the forces on it. It is not that they lack rifles or ammunition or that, if they do have any deficiencies in any of those, they cannot purchase what they need. That is not the trouble. The trouble lies elsewhere, and it is not the function of the United States nor will it or can it attempt to furnish a will to resist and a purpose for resistance to those who must provide for themselves.

That is the background of this statement. The President goes on to say that in regard to economic assistance which we have been furnishing, we will furnish it for as long as the legislation that Congress has passed permits us to. Whether that legislation will be extended or not, I don't wish to prejudice this afternoon. That is a matter for discussion with the leaders, and for action by the Congress. We have been, through the ECA, conducting programs one of which has resulted in all the fertilizer necessary for the spring crop on the Island of Formosa. Others have been the purchase of necessary oil for refining on the Island and for running the power plants and other things on the Island. Other programs have had to do with keeping their power plants and other factories in repair and in operation. Those are going forward.

Now those are the main statements of background which I wish to make. I am informed by Mr. McDermott that some of you wish me to say what if any significance is to be attached to the sentence in the next-to-last paragraph of the statement which says, "The United States has no desire to obtain special rights or privileges or to establish military bases on Formosa at this time." The question is, what does that phrase "at this time" mean. That phrase does not qualify or modify or weaken the fundamental policies stated in this declaration by the President in any respect. It is a recognition of the fact that, in the unlikely and unhappy event that our forces might be attacked in the Far East, the United States must be completely free to take whatever action in whatever area is necessary for its own security.

1 See summary of U.S. aid for the period 1937-1949; United States Relations with China, with Special Reference to the Period 1944-1949 (Department of State publication 3573; 1949), pp. 1042-1053.

2 Act of Apr. 3, 1948; ibid., pp. 991-993.

See economic cooperation agreement of July 3, 1948; ibid., pp. 994-1001.

62. RECALL OF FOREIGN SERVICE PERSONNEL FROM COMMUNIST CHINA: Statement by the Department of State, January 14, 1950 (Excerpts)1

Chinese Communist authorities in Peiping have ordered the taking over of United States Government consular property in Peiping and today have seized that property in defiance of protests by the United States Government. This seizure is in violation of long standing treaty rights granted the United States in 19012 and reaffirmed in the Sino-United States treaty of 1943 by which the United States voluntarily relinquished its extraterritorial rights in China.3

The United States Government takes an extremely serious view of this situation, which constitutes a flagrant violation of our treaty rights and of the most elementary standards of international usage and conduct.

The seizure was carried out despite our protests and our announced intention to withdraw all American official personnel from Communist China if the Chinese Communists attempted to seize our office and properties.

The Department is now preparing instructions for the recall of all American official personnel from Communist China. Arrangements for the withdrawal of our official personnel will be made as expeditiously as possible and when completed our official establishments will be closed. Any facilities for evacuation from China which are arranged for our official personnel will be made available for all American citizens who desire to depart.

This violation of American consular property has arisen in almost immediate sequence to the harsh and unjustified treatment of United States Consul General Angus Ward and his staff at Mukden. It also is one in the long series of mistreatment of Americans, which included the beating of Vice Consul Olive in Shanghai and the continued detention of Messrs. Smith and Bender, United States Navy personnel.5

The background of this unprecedented act by the Chinese Communists is as follows:

On January 6, the Chinese Communist military authorities at Peiping issued a proclamation which stated that "certain foreign countries in the past, utilizing the so-called 'right of stationing troops' of unequal treaties, have occupied land in the Peking municipality and constructed military barracks" and expressing their intention of recovering "this type of real property right." The proclamation further stated that "because of military exigencies, this type of mili

1 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 23, 1950, pp. 119–121.

2 See protocol of Sept. 7, 1901, especially article V and annex 14; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1901, Appendix, pp. 316, 330-331.

3 Treaty of Jan. 11, 1943 (TS 984; 57 Stat., pt. 2, p. 767).

4 See Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 26, 1949, pp. 955-957.

See ibid., Dec. 12, 1949, p. 908.

tary barracks and other installations will first be requisitioned."' On January 7, the Chinese Communist military authorities addressed a communication to the American Consul General at Peiping represented as an order for the requisitioning of United States Government official property at No. 22 Legation Street in Peiping and directed the Consul General to send a messenger with authority to turn over this property, which was being used by the American Čonsulate General for official purposes.2

3

The Department of State instructed the American Consul General at Peiping on January 7 to transmit to Gen. Chou En-lai a communication pointing out that the United States Government acquired the right to use for official purposes the land in question under the protocol signed at Peking [Peiping] on September 7, 1901, by China and eleven other powers and that this right was reaffirmed in the SinoUnited States treaty of 1943, under which this Government relinquished its extraterritorial rights in China. The Consul General was further instructed to state that this land and the buildings thereon were now being used for official purposes and that the so-called military barracks mentioned in the communication from the Chinese Communist military authorities had long since been converted into an office building and used as the office of the American Consulate General. In conclusion, he was directed to express the United States Government's expectation that no action would be taken constituting any violation of the rights of the United States Government as set forth above.1

Mr. Clubb reported that he had sent the above-mentioned communication to General Chou on January 9 and that the communication had been returned to him without answer or acknowledgment but with indications that it had been opened and read. Mr. Clubb later informed the Department that he had delivered a second communication on this subject to General Chou on January 10, which was designed to clarify to the local authorities that the property in question was in fact the office of the American Consulate General." This communication was also returned to Mr. Clubb with indications that it had been opened and read. On January 8 Mr. Clubb had made a simple acknowledgment of the communication of January 7 from the Chinese Communist military authorities and on January 11, in accordance with instructions from the Department, he forwarded a second communication to these authorities, enclosing a copy of each of his letters to General Chou. All these communications were returned to Mr. Clubb with indications that they had been opened and read.

1 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 23, 1950, p. 121.

2 Ibid.

3 Bracketed insertion by the editors of the Department of State Bulletin. For the text of the Consul General's communication, dated Jan. 9, 1950, see ibid., p. 122. (For a correction of the date of the note as printed, see ibid., Mar. 27, 1950, p. 487.)

5 Oliver E. Clubb, American Consul General at Peiping.

Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 23, 1950, pp. 121-122. (For a correction in the date of the note as printed, see ibid., Mar. 27, 1950, p. 487.)

In recognition of the limitations of time and in view of the extremely serious concern of the United States Government over the developments at Peiping, the Department, having informed the British Embassy in Washington on January 7 of this development, on January 10 requested the good offices of the British Foreign Office to the end that the British officer-in-charge at Peiping be instructed to convey personally on behalf of the United States Government to General Chou En-lai or, in his absence, to the highest ranking Chinese Communist official available to him a statement to the following effect:

"General Chou will have by now received the communication regarding the question of requisition of the former military barracks area of the United States Government at Peiping forwarded to him by Mr. Clubb on instructions from this Government. In accordance with the provisions of Article II of the Sino-United States treaty of 1943, under which the United States Government relinquished its extraterritorial rights in China, the United States Government would have no objection to turning over to the authorities at Peiping the Glacis property to the west of the United States Government consular compounds. The United States Government would also be prepared to turn over to the authorities at Peiping for immediate occupancy the United States Government-owned building on this property and enter into discussions regarding indemnification for the building.

1

"Should the requisition order of the Chinese Communist military authorities be made applicable, however, to any part of the United States Government's consular compounds, the United States Government would consider such action a violation of its rights and would conclude that it had no alternative to closing all of its official establishments in Communist China and to withdrawing all of its official personnel from Communist China." 2

The British Government was good enough to send appropriate instructions to its officer-in-charge at Peiping. In view of the time limitations involved and in order to ensure that the Chinese Communist authorities be aware of the views and intentions of the United States Government and not act without full realization of the inevitable results of a violation of United States rights, Mr. Clubb was authorized as a last resort, in the event that the British Government's instructions to its officer-in-charge did not arrive prior to the expira

1 The boundary area on three sides of the diplomatic quarter, which for defense purposes had originally been cleared of buildings. This area was under the joint administration of the diplomatic quarter and its return to Chinese control was envisaged in the various treaties between China and foreign powers for the relinquishment of extraterritorial rights. [Footnote in the original press statement.] 2 On Jan. 14, 1950, the Department of State instructed American Foreign Service posts at Nanking, Shanghai, Peiping, and Tientsin to close as soon as transportation could be arranged for official personnel and arrangements made for British representatives in those cities to take charge of American interests. The Consulate General at Tsingtao was closed on Jan. 23, 1950, when American personnel left the city (Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 20, 1950, p. 302). For additional information regarding the closing of American consulates in Communist China, see Secretary Acheson's statements of Mar. 1, 1950 (ibid., Mar. 13, 1950, p. 406), Mar. 8, 1950 (ibid., Mar. 20, 1950, p. 462), and Apr. 12, 1950 (ibid., Apr. 24, 1950, pp. 630-631).

tion of the time limit, to bring directly or indirectly to the attention of General Chou En-lai or some other Chinese Communist official the views and intentions of the United States Government. This Mr. Clubb did in a communication to General Chou on January 12, which was received and subsequently returned. At 3:30 p. m. on January 13, Mr. Clubb received an oral communication from a representative of the Military Control Commission that the requisition order would be put into effect from 9:00 a. m. the following day. Immediately upon receipt of this notice, Mr. Clubb orally informed this representative that if the order was carried out it would be the full responsibility of those concerned and against United States Government official protests. Mr. Clubb later in the same day confirmed this message by formal letter.2

At 9:50 a. m. on January 14 the premises of the Consulate General were invaded by the police and four civilian officials.

63. REVIEW OF UNITED STATES POLICY IN RELATION TO CHINA (REPLIES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO A SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONTAINED IN HOUSE RESOLUTION 452 (81st CONGRESS, 2d SESSION): Report of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 9, 1950 3

The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 452) requesting the State Department to furnish full and complete answers to certain questions relating to the foreign policy of the United States in the Far East, having considered the same, report adversely thereon and recommend that the resolution do not pass.

The recommendation of the committee is based on the fact that answers to the questions contained in the resolution have been furnished the committee by the Department of State. With the exception of portions of two answers, the publication of which portions is felt by the Department of State would be incompatible with the public interest, the answers are included in this report for the information of the Members of the House, and are as follows:

Question 1

With respect to the President's statement of January 5, 1950,1 on policy regarding Formosa

(a) Were the views of the Secretary of Defense solicited in the formulation of the policy enunciated therein?

Comment.-Yes.

Question 1 (b)

Were the above views and the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of Gen. Douglas MacArthur presented to the National Security Council in its deliberations preceding the said statement?

1 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 23, 1950, pp. 122–123.

2 Ibid., p. 123.