The Secretary inquired what would happen under Article 16. The Ambassador replied that the procedure was all written out. The Secretary referred to experience in connection with Article 16 in the Italian-Ethiopian controversy." The Ambassador said that he imagined that his Government did not expect that much action would be taken. The Secretary said that it was for that reason that he wondered what the Chinese Government expected to accomplish: whether such an appeal would not be "an advance backward." The Ambassador expressed the view that an advantage would be gained by calling the world's attention to the situation. The Secretary suggested that introducing the question of sanctions-notwithstanding experiencemight neutralize the benefits of an appeal to the League through the bad effects of a rebuff. If the experience with Italy is repeated, what does China gain; would it not do China's cause harm. The Secretary explained that he was merely speaking as an individual, he was not expressing an official opinion. The Ambassador said that he assumed that the voicing by the Secretary of a personal view would not indicate that the American Government was not willing to give support. The Secretary replied that the Chinese must consider our record; they must take notice of our historic position. The Ambassador said that he understood. He mentioned the record of 1932. The Secretary replied that sanctions were not at that time tried. He called attention to the fact that the Ambassador was now asking us to do a certain thing, whence it followed that it was appropriate for him, the Secretary, to ask questions. There were exchanged certain remarks with regard to the severity of the fighting and the unfortunate character of the whole situation; and the conversation there ended. S[TANLEY] K. H[ORNBECK] 793.94/9941: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Bullitt) WASHINGTON, September 3, 1937-4 p. m. 466. Your 1238, September 2, 6 p. m. I quote below a memorandum of a conversation between Wilson and Mallet of the British Embassy, dated September 2nd, in which Wilson replied orally to an aidemémoire from the British Embassy inquiring if the United States would be represented in any way at the sessions at Geneva: [Here follows quotation of memorandum dated September 2, printed on page 9.] In talking with Delbos, I should like you to be guided by the recollection that the League states have repeatedly asked this Government 17 See Foreign Relations, 1935, vol. 1, pp. 836 ff., and ibid., 1936, vol. III, pp. 88 ff. to commit itself to a course of action or a type of representation before they have carried through or even embarked upon the necessary campaign in the Assembly to make such a course of action possible. In other words, the tendency of the League states has often been to shove the United States to the fore and to base their campaign for action on the fact that the United States is already pledged. In this instance, we do not know under what conditions we might be asked to participate and, therefore, prefer to leave our hands free to deal with the fact when it arises. This does not indicate that we will not give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of cooperation with any serious effort of the states of the League to deal with this problem.18 I think you should bear another thing in mind. Harrison will be in Geneva and I am preparing a telegraphic instruction for his guidance during this session. I plan to mention, among other things, the fact that if the Neutrality Act has been put into force the policy of the American Government must be in conformity with that Act and our course of action will be legally and specifically limited. HULL 793.94/9990a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) WASHINGTON, September 7, 1937—6 p. m. 51. Before you proceed to Geneva, I think it well to give you an outline of my views on certain current problems, in order that you may be guided during the conversations you may have during the Assembly. Please reread with care my public statements of July 16th 19 and of August 23rd.20 You will find that the first statement lists those principles which the American Government considers fundamental and essential to peaceful intercourse between civilized nations and that the second shows that the American Government believes that such principles apply to the Pacific areas, as well as to the rest of the world. The American Government has maintained a strictly fair and impartial course as between Japan and China. Nevertheless, it cannot but feel that these essential principles are being grossly violated. It is a pity that other nations have not more generally realized how such public utterances and the public reiteration of these principles would strengthen the principle of validity of treaties and foster 18 The Ambassador in France, in his telegram No. 1251, September 7, 11 a. m. (vol. I, p. 123), reported carrying out instructions, and added that Foreign Minister Delbos believed the League of Nations would go only so far as to request both belligerents to stop fighting. He also was of the opinion that Germany would attack Czechoslovakia in the event that the Soviet Union were to support China strongly enough to make Japanese victory doubtful. 19 Vol. 1, p. 699. 20 Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931-1941, vol. 1, p. 355. 205655--54-2 the growth of a world-wide determination to resolve international differences by peaceful means only. You will doubtless be asked why, under present conditions, the United States Government has not put into effect the Neutrality Act. You will find, on consulting the Act, that the opening paragraph thereof reads as follows: "Whenever the President shall find that there exists a state of war between, or among, two or more foreign states, the President shall" et cetera. Thus a question of fact shall determine the application of the Act and the Act must be put into force when such a state of facts arises. In the case of the conflict between Japan and China, intermittent acts of hostility have occurred over a long period of time and the present conflict, while greater in volume, appears to present in their minds a difference in degree rather than in character. Both parties to the conflict claim they are not at war; both parties to the conflict maintain in the other's territory diplomatic and consular representatives. Japan claims that its action is in the nature of a punitive expedition and repeatedly has disclaimed the intention of acquisition of territory. For your confidential information, we are daily considering the application of the Neutrality Act and conditions in China may at any moment render it essential to apply it. We can adopt only a temporary policy and one of day by day application. The Chinese have sent a communication both to the League and to members of the Advisory Committee in the dispute between China and Japan. At the inception of the Advisory Committee in 1933 and subsequently Wilson was designated to sit with the Committee without the right of vote. If it is decided that the same committee is still in existence and a meeting is summoned, you may be authorized to attend under the same instructions as Wilson received. In any case, you are requested not to give the impression that we will necessarily participate in any discussion of the present problem in Geneva. We prefer to reserve judgment entirely in this matter. HULL 793.94/10005: Telegram The Consul at Geneva (Bucknell) to the Secretary of State GENEVA, September 9, 1937-7 p. m. [Received September 9-5:53 p. m.] 272. Consulate's 262, August 30, 9 p. m. and Department's telegram 133, September 3, 5 p. m.21 Hoo informed me today that China had now definitely decided to make an appeal to the Assembly but was still undecided regarding the best procedure to adopt.22 He explained 21 Latter not printed. 22 See also paragraph 2 of telegram No. 588, September 9, 10 p. m., from the Chargé in the United Kingdom, p. 454. that a decision as to whether China would request the convocation of the Advisory Committee would in his view depend largely upon whether or not the United States would be willing to be represented on the Committee as heretofore. If so, the Advisory Committee would probably be utilized. In the event that Chinese insistence upon employing the Advisory Committee might serve to prejudice American policy toward the Sino-Japanese dispute, or should we be unwilling to be represented thereon, a new appeal would probably be made under a new article, probably article 17, thus initiating a fresh procedure. He stated that he had urged his Government to ascertain the views of the United States regarding the Advisory Committee before making a final decision in the matter but that he had not yet received any instructions. Hoo went on to say that he was doubtful whether anything concrete could be accomplished by an appeal to the present Assembly but he believed that since the present dispute would extend over a long period an immediate appeal should be made and that even if no results were obtained at this Assembly, changing conditions or events might make this action ultimately worth while possibly in the shape of sanctions to the extent of obtaining munitions and credits for China while withholding them from Japan. BUCKNELL 793.94/10048a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) WASHINGTON, September 11, 1937-3 p. m. 54. Supplementing my No. 51, of September 7, 6 p. m., it has been our experience over a number of years that members of the League will endeavor to obtain from the United States assurances as to American action under hypothetical conditions. For instance, they may ask "In the event that the Chinese appeal is referred to the First Commission and the United States is invited to sit thereon, would an American representative be designated?" We have sometimes found that the hypothetical conditions did not develop and that, due to our replying to such hypothetical questions, the United States found itself far in advance of other powers in commitment. In view of the foregoing, I suggest that you refuse even to speculate with representatives of other nations as to what decision your Government will make under given conditions. It appears to us an eminently tenable position that some 50 states should make up their minds and express themselves on a given problem before any one state, outside of their organization, is asked to commit itself. We have already sent instructions in this sense to Bullitt, who has been approached by Delbos with hypothetical questions. There is, however, one piece of advice of a negative character that you might convey to League members upon inquiry. It seems improbable that the United States would want to sit on the First Commission, in the event that it is requested to do so, in order to discuss the Chinese question, or upon any other public body, especially one newly constituted. The acceptance of such an invitation would be a political act of visible importance. I shall be particularly interested in receiving from you any impressions which you obtain from member states, particularly from Great Britain and France as to whether they are inclined to consider that a "state of war" exists in China and, if so, whether they contemplate any action in respect to neutrality. I do not need to urge upon you the necessity for discretion in such inquiry. Cable when you are proceeding Geneva. HULL 793.94/10040: Telegram The Consul at Geneva (Bucknell) to the Secretary of State GENEVA, September 12, 1937-5 p. m. [Received September 12-3: 25 p. m.] 284. The Chinese delegation today issued a communiqué to the press stating that: "In view of the unprecedented gravity of Japanese aggression in China, the Chinese Government decides to bring the matter once more before the League of Nations. A written appeal will be submitted to the League within a few days." After a brief description of Japanese aggression the statement affirms China's belief that the League "should and [now?] undertake immediate and effective measures to put a stop to the intolerable continuance of Japanese aggressive and atrocious activities in China and to uphold the sanctity of international treaties. It is also their hope that the United States of America, devoted as she is to the cause of peace and international justice, will associate herself with the actions of the League in the future, as in the past; and that other nations having interests in the Far East but nonmembers of the League will likewise contribute their share to the general efforts to check aggression and bring about peace in Eastern Asia". BUCKNELL |