COMMENT BY THE SPOKESMAN
FOR THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA
ON THE RESOLUTION OF
THE NANKING EXECUTIVE YUAN
January 21, 1949
The Central News Agency, the official news agency of the reactionary Nanking Kuomintang government, said in a dispatch of January 19 that the Executive Yuan, at a meeting at 9 a.m. on the same day, had extensively discussed the current situation and passed the following resolution:
In deference to the desire of the people of the whole country to realize an early peace, the Government hereby expresses its considered wish, first, together with the Communist Party of China, to effect an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities, and then, to appoint delegates to enter into peace negotiations.
The spokesman for the Communist Party of China states: This resolution of the Nanking Executive Yuan makes no mention of the statement proposing peace negotiations issued on January 1 by Chiang Kai-shek, the bogus Nanking president, or of the statement proposing peace negotiations issued on January 14 by Chairman Mao Tse-tung of the Communist Party of China; nor does it indicate which of the two statements it supports and which it opposes, but instead puts forward a proposal of its own, as if neither the Kuomintang nor the Communist Party had made any proposals on January 1 and January 14; all this is utterly incomprehensible. As a matter of fact, the Nanking Executive Yuan has not only completely ignored the Chinese Communist Party's proposal of January 14 but has also flatly repudiated the proposal made on January 1 by the bogus President Chiang Kai-shek. He said in his January 1 proposal:
As soon as the Communist Party has a sincere desire for peace and can give definite indications of this, the Government will certainly meet it in all sincerity and be willing to discuss concrete measures for ending hostilities and restoring peace.
Now, nineteen days later, an organ of this selfsame government, that is, the "Executive Yuan" of the Nanking government, repudiates the statement made by the "president" of that government and, instead of saying that the government "will certainly meet" the Communist Party "in all sincerity and be willing to discuss concrete measures for ending hostilities and restoring peace", it says, "first, effect an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities, and then, appoint delegates to enter into peace negotiations." We should like to ask the gentlemen of the "Executive Yuan" at Nanking: after all, which proposal stands, yours or that of your "president"? Your "president" regarded "ending hostilities and restoring peace" as one and the same thing and professed sincerity and willingness to discuss concrete measures for doing so with the Communist Party of China, whereas you divorce war from peace as two separate things and are reluctant to appoint delegates to discuss with us concrete measures for ending hostilities and, instead, indulge in the wildest fantasy, proposing "first, to effect an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities" and then to appoint delegates to "enter into peace negotiations". Which proposal is right, yours or that of your "president"? We hold that the bogus Executive Yuan at Nanking has acted beyond its authority; it has no right to cast aside the proposal of its bogus president and arbitrarily make a new proposal of its own. We regard this new proposal as unreasonable; having fought such a large-scale, protracted and cruel war, both sides should as a matter of course appoint delegates to discuss basic peace terms and work out a mutually acceptable truce agreement; only thus can the war be stopped. Not only do the people desire this, even on the Kuomintang side many persons have expressed this desire. If the absolutely groundless "resolution" of the Nanking Executive Yuan is followed and the Kuomintang is unwilling to carry on peace negotiations unless there is first a cessation of hostilities, then where is its sincere desire for peace? The "resolution" of the Nanking Executive Yuan has been adopted, there can be no peace negotiations unless there is first a cessation of hostilities, and from now on the door to peace is shut tight; if there are to be negotiations, the only thing to do is to annul this absolutely groundless "resolution". It must be one or the
other. If the Nanking Executive Yuan is unwilling to annul its own "resolution", this will only show that the reactionary Nanking Kuomintang government has no sincere desire to hold peace negotiations with the opposing side. People will ask, if Nanking is sincere, why is it unwilling to discuss concrete peace terms? Hasn't the conclusion been confirmed that Nanking's peace proposal is hypocritical? The spokesman for the Communist Party says: Nanking has now fallen into a state of anarchy, the bogus president has one proposal and the bogus Executive Yuan has another. With whom is one to deal?