Evening star., 1951-12-14


from the State Department as
W Board finding of reasonable
-AP Photo.
candidly stated. The sum and
! substance of Mr.. Services recon-
Imendations was contained in his
report No. 40, dated october 10,
1914, which profoundly displeased
Ambassador Hurley. and in a re-
port drafted by him and by R. P.
Ludden. another American OBJ
server, dated February IA. 1945.
4 Copies of both reports which
have been declassified are ap-
pended to this opinion. The es-
sential difference between AM
bassador Hurley on the one hand
and Mr.. Service. General Stilwell
and the staff of the Embassy at
Chungking on the other hand,
concerned the terms on which the
amalgamation of forces was to be
effected, the conditions under
which lend-lease aid would be ex-
tended to the Communist forces,
the extent to which United States
Interests required acceptance of
the views of Chang Kai-shek as
to the nature and policies of the
Chinese Government, or change in
the nature and policies of that
Government.
/ Both Ambassador Hurley and
Mr.. Service advocated, and it was
a major objective of Ambassador
Hurley's mission to achieve, un-
ification of all Chinese military
forces for the purpose of defeat
ing Japan. Ambassador Hurley
considered that his primary duty
was to sustain the Nationalist
Government and that the Com
munists should be armed only
through the Nationalist Govern
ment. Mr.. Service and General
Stilwell considered the Nationalist
Government was not prosecuting
the war as vigorously as required
They believed that the Chinese
forces could be unified only by
utilizing lend-lease aid as a bar
gaining weapon to force Chang
Kai-shek to form a coalition gov
ernment. and that some lend
lease aid might. if required, be
1extended TO the Chinese Com
munist forces directly. Mr.. Serv-
ice did not favor stopping lend
lease assistance to Chang Kai-
| shek but did favor making it's con-
Itinuance conditional upon agree
ment by Chang to broaden the
base Of the Government and un-
dertake substantial economic, pol
Iitical and social reform.
Issue Defined.
The issue before the board does
not require a decision as to who
was right. The issue is rather
whether the views expressed by
Mr.. Service constitute disloyalty
to American policy with respect
to China. The board finds no indi-
cation that Mr.. Service was dis
loyal in this respect. Rather. the
board finds that he was properly
stating to his superiors the con-
clusions at which he had honestly
arrived as result of his personal
observations both in Chungking
and in Yenan. and recommending
a change in policy which he be-
lieved essential in the national in
tereSt.
In this connection the boaro
I finds itself in hearty accord with
a statement made by Secretary
Byrnes to the Foreign Relations
Committee concerning the reports
lof Mr.. Service and of the Other
Foreign Service officers criticized
by Ambassador Hurley: What il
Iamounts to is that within proper
channels they expressed to those
under whom they served certain
views which differed to a greater
or less degree from the policies O.
the Government as then defined
OF course. it is the duty of ever,
officer of the United States tx
abide by and administer the de.
clared policy of his Government
But conditions change, and otter
change quickly in the affairs o.
governments. Whenever an Off
cial honestly believes that changed
conditions require it, he shoult
mot hesitate to express his view
to his superior officers.
II should be profoundly unhap
lpy to- learn that an officer of tn,
Department of State, within O
without the Foreign Service, nigh
feel bound to refrain from sub
mitting through channels an hon
est report or recommendation 70
fear of offending some one in TIN
department" AS Mr.. George F
Kennan, counsellor of the depart
ment. said befroe this board: g
would feel very alarmed for tn
future of Foreign Service report
! ing if we ever were to permit tn
implication to creep in that pol
icy recommendation contrary t
the policy that was actuall
:. adopted by the Government wa
I a sign of disloyalty to the Gov
a ernment purposes"
: With respect, to the third ale
I cation that Mr.. Service was sym
0 pathetic with Communism an
d working in the interest of tn
g lCommunist Party, the Board find
tlnn evidence that his rennrts &C