Did not anybody else report it? Senator SPARKMAN. I do not know. This was given in the MacArthur hearings. You will find it at page 2135-I think Senator Cain was doing the questioning. He asked if Secretary Acheson knew that Admiral Nimitz had been quoted, and he quotes as follows from the Seattle Times: The five-star admiral who has been working for the United Nations for 14 months also said that United States recognition of the Communist Government of China is inevitable I will not say he advocated it. In predicting recognition of Red China, Nimitz said "to have mutual beneficial trade relations with China, we have to have some degree of recognition of their government whether you like the government or not. The British did it right away and got kicked in the teeth. After the insults to us and seizure of American property, we cannot recognize the Communist regime right away, but I am convinced that the insulting and other incidents were inspired by a third party which wants to keep China and the United States apart. Then he asked Secretary Acheson how that came about and Secretary Acheson said: I cannot answer for Admiral Nimitz. He is a man who has his own views, which are well known to everybody. It seems that was in June 1950, from Senator Cain's question. That is all I know about it. Mr. STASSEN. He does not recommend it? Senator SPARKMAN. No. I say he predicts it as being inevitable. Mr. STASSEN. He migh have been in touch with the State Department at that time. VIEWS OF FOSTER R. DULLES Senator SPARKMAN. I happen to know that the State Department at that time, as I have stated before, was very positively on record in opposition to the recognition of Communist China. I find in the New York Times of March 19, 1951, where Mr. Foster R. Dulles-now that is not John Foster Dulles, but Foster R. Dullesfar eastern expert said today that the United States should have recognized Communist China 5 years ago— and so forth. I will place that in the record. (The material referred to appears in the record as follows:) [Article from New York Times, March 19, 1951] DULLES SEES UNITED STATES LATE ON CHINA MIDDLEBURY, VT., March 18 (AP).-Foster R. Dulles, far eastern expert, said today that the United States should have recognized Communist China 5 years ago. He told the ninth annual Middlebury College conference "that was our only opportunity to drive a wedge between Peking and Moscow. Instead, the Chinese now associate America with the corrupt Chiang government." William L. Shirer, author, said "a 20-division German army such as now planned by the western allies might drag us into war with Soviet Russia to regain lost German provinces." Senator SPARKMAN. I have another article from the New York Times of Saturday, April 29, 1950, stating that 68 Protestant missionaries and mission executives issued a statement calling on Government officials to take steps looking toward the early recognition of the People's Republic of China. I see in the New York Times of September 22, 1949, where a group of United States citizens in Shanghai today called on the United States to establish a sound basis for friendly relations with the new Chinese Communist Government. I will place those in the record at this point. (The material referred to appears in the record, as follows:) GROUPS ADVOCATING RECOGNITION OF RED CHINA [From the New York Times, Saturday, April 29, 1950] RECOGNIZE RED CHINA, MISSION LEADERS ASK Sixty-eight Protestant missionaries and mission executives issued a statement yesterday calling on Government officials to take steps looking toward the early recognition of the People's Republic of China. The statement, it was announced, has been sent to Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Senator Tom Connally, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Representative John Key, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. In urging recognition of China's Communist Government, the signers of the statement emphasized that they spoke as individuals and not as representatives of their denominations. Prefacing the document with the comment that most of them have been connected with mission work in China for 20 years or more, the signers asserted that the People's Republic is the actual Government of China and is generally accepted as such by the people of China. Signers included the Reverend Dr. Earle H. Ballou, the Reverend Dr. Charles L. Boynton, the Reverend Dr. Leland S. Brubaker, the Reverend Dr. Frank T. Cartwright, the Reverend Dr. Rowland M. Cross, the Reverend Dr. John W. Decker, the Reverend Dr. Wynn C. Fairfield, the Reverend Theodore F. Romig, the Reverend Dr. Lloyd S. Ruland, the Reverend Dr. Luman J. Shafer, Mrs. Arthur M. Sherman, and the Reverend Dr. Everett M. Stowe. [From the New York Times, Thursday, September 22, 1949] AMERICANS ASK CHINA TIE-104 PETITION UNITED STATES TO SET UP SOUND BASIS FOR RELATIONS WITH REDS SHANGHAI, September 21 (UP).—A group of United States citizens in Shanghai today called on the United States to establish a sound basis for friendly relations with the new Chinese Communist government. A petition requesting the United States State Department to take measures to facilitate the restoration of shipping and trade and he continuation of friendly relations between Americans and Chinese was handed to the United States Consul General here. The petition was signed by 104 Americans who asked that it be submitted to Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Sponsors of the petition included Paul Moritz, of the International Committee of the Young Men's Christian Association; Dr. Henry D. Jones, of the National Christian Council; and John W. Powell, editor and publisher of the American-Chinese Weekly Review. Senator SPARKMAN. I think the latter article is the same one that was introduced in the MacArthur hearings, where the question of identifying those people came up and they were not identified because many of them still live there and there is some question of reprisals. Mr. STASSEN. What the Communists did at that time was to go to American businessmen and missionaries in Shanghai and those places and said, "If you get us recognition, we are going to treat you better." It is the same thing they pulled in Czechoslovakia, in a different way: "If you let us get in bed with you, we will treat you better," and then they proceeded to kill the president. Senator SPARKMAN. I know they must have done a pretty good job TOWN MEETING OF THE AIR PROGRAM By the way, I notice where the Town Meeting of the Air on December 6, 1949, had a program entitled "Should We Recognize the Chinese Communist Government?" It was John K. Fairbank and George G. Cobean. Mr. STASSEN. Dr. Fairbank was present in the October 1949 conference. Senator SPARKMAN. Dr. Fairbank is a professor of history at Harvard. He is in charge of the Chinese regional studies program at Harvard and is coauthor of a recent book, Next Step in Asia. Dr. Fairbank was special assistant to the American Ambassador in China in 1942-43, and Director of the United States Information Service in China in 1945-46. George G. Cobean is the president of the Bulkley Dunton Paper Co. of South America and vice president of the Bulkley Dunton Paper Co. of the Far East. He recently returned from a trip around the world. That is all I know about that. I am not mentioning these with the idea of justifying the position anybody took in recognizing Communist China, but just to indicate that back in those days there was considerable sentiment in favor of recognizing. The State Department received so many communications during those days urging recognition that they had to prepare a form letter to be sent out in reply, in which it was definitely stated that we were not going to recognize them. It seems to me that somebody placed that in the record. CONCLUDING THE SESSION Mr. Stassen, do you have anything further to say? I realize I have kept you here rather late and much later than I intended. Mr. STASSEN. That is really all right, Senator. I do hope that you watch India and get that straightened out. Senator SPARK MAN. I assure you I will do my best to watch India. Again I will say that watching India does not do much good with reference to determining how we should vote on the fitness of Dr. Philip C. Jessup to represent us in the forthcoming session of the General Assembly. Mr. STASSEN. That is one of your factors, of course, of our India policy, and one of the many that you have to evaluate. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your appearance and your patience and endurance. The subcommittee will meet tomorrow morning at 10 a. m., in executive session, with no witnesses present. (Whereupon, at 6:30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene in executive session at 10 a. m. Tuesday, October 9, 1951.) LETTER FROM CONGRESSMEN OPPOSING JESSUP NOMINATION (In a subsequent meeting, the following letter was presented to the subcommittee; it has been requested that the letter be supplied for the public record :) LETTER OF CONGRESSMEN OPPOSING NOMINATION Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Jessup Nomination, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. OCTOBER 7, 1951. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: We, the undersigned, would appreciate it if you would direct your subcommittee's attention our feelings concerning the nomination of Philip C. Jessup to be a delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations. When this country chooses a person to represent the American viewpoint in the deliberations of the United Nations, it is vital that the appointee bear not only his credentials but the unreserved support of the American people. His reputation and standing should be beyond question. Mr. Jessup's record, as developed in testimony before your subcommittee, including the testimony of Mr. Jessup himself, is not one to inspire the confidence of the American people, or to command the respect of the delegates from other nations in a world gathering such as this one. The most important question, as we see it, is not Mr. Jessup's faith in America, but America's faith in Mr. Jessup. In these critical times, the least our country deserves is representation by men in whom the American people have faith and confidence. In the belief that Mr. Jessup's record does not meet this criterion, we, as Members of the House of Representatives, respectfully urge the subcommittee to recommend against Mr. Jessup's confirmation. (Signed :) James I. Dolliver, Iowa; William S. Hill, Colorado; |