793.003/850a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in China (Johnson) WASHINGTON, March 17, 1937-6 p. m. 55. For the attention only of the Ambassador and the Counselor.29 The Department has for some time been giving thought to the question of the advisability of this Government taking the initiative in approaching the Chinese Government with an offer to resume the extraterritoriality negotiations which have been in abeyance since 1931. Before giving further consideration to the matter, the Department desires to have the benefit of your views and comments. It is particularly desired that you give your considered opinion as to the opportuneness of such action at this time, bearing in mind in that connection (1) the question whether the resumption of such negotiations at this time would be likely to have a disturbing effect upon the general situation in the Far East, with special reference to Sino-Japanese relations, and (2) the question of the likelihood of the Chinese Government being willing to accept a draft of a treaty following substantially the lines of the draft treaty of July 14, 1931 30 (a copy of which was forwarded to Peiping under cover of Department's instruction No. 550 of July 17, 1931 31). If, in your opinion, the Chinese Government would be likely to insist upon an agreement providing for a much more far-reaching relinquishment of American extraterritorial rights than that envisaged in 1931, it is desired that you give your view as to whether in the light of existing Chinese laws and administration of justice this Government would be warranted in taking an initiative in the matter. The Department feels that this is a matter in which this Government should continue as in the past to collaborate with the British Government and the Department would therefore hope, before approaching the Chinese in the matter, to confer with the British Government. The Department would also hope, prior to initiating negotiations, to inform the Japanese Government and perhaps other interested governments of its intentions in the matter. Please reply at early date. 793.003/855: Telegram HULL The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State NANKING, March 22, 1937-10 a. m. [Received March 22-9:15 a. m.] 126. Department's telegram No. 55, March 17, 6 p. m. 1. As the Department is aware, the recent plenary session of the Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution calling upon the Government to conduct negotiations for the early abolition of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This resolution, quoted in an instruction to the Executive Yuan dated March 6, was published in the National Government Gazette of March 9. Otherwise it has received little publicity although it was commented upon as early as March 6 by the "spokesman" of the Japanese Foreign Office. I have received no intimation from anyone as to what action the Chinese Foreign Office will take in response to the instruction from the Executive Yuan but I think we may expect at any time now to receive a communication from the Foreign Office on the subject. 2. We are therefore offered a choice of two lines of action on the part of this Government. 3. We may await the expected communication from the Foreign Office, which will probably be in line with its communication of January 18, 1934,32 or we may take the initiative and go back to our negotiations of 1930 and 31 offering the Chinese the draft of July 14, 1931.33 4. The first alternative has the obvious advantage of putting the Chinese into the position of petitioner and would permit us to ask for a complete showing of their proposals and would tie the whole subject up with the general question of treaty revision. The second alternative might be advantageous provided we were prepared and were able to carry negotiations through to a mutually satisfactory settlement retaining throughout the initiative. To take the initiative would be in line with our general policy of treating with China as an independent and sovereign nation and would presumably enhance our good will, but if no agreement were reached the effect of the gesture would be lost. From the point of view of Sino-Japanese relations our initiative in this matter would without doubt tend to strengthen the hands of the Chinese Government and aid it in building up its prestige among its own people at a time when it is seeking the support of a unified China and of foreign powers in an effort to withstand aggression. 5. I do not believe that any step which we might take in support of China's claim to administrative sovereignty would have a disturbing effect upon the general situation in the Far East. It would be consistent with our general policy in the Far East at this time when we are contemplating turning over to the jurisdiction of the Filipinos (a people who have never enjoyed independence of government) a greater American material investment and interest than we possess in China. I conceive that our initiative in this matter in China might be of value in helping our people to adjust themselves to developments 32 See telegram No. 56, January 23, 1934, 5 p. m., from the Minister in China, Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. III, p. 525. 33 Ibid., 1931, vol. III, p. 893. in Manchuria where preparations are being made to abolish several extraterritorial privileges. 6. Our liberation of the Philippine Islands has, I believe, gained for us increased esteem among oriental peoples. A similar gesture to the largest of oriental nations would assist in capitalizing this gain. The Chinese will undoubtedly insist upon an agreement from [for?] a much more far reaching relinquishing of American extraterritorial rights than was envisaged by us in 1931 but I believe much progress has been made in Chinese laws and the administration of justice since then. The question of the efficiency of Chinese law and administration seems less important to me now, however, than a more satisfactory treaty arrangement on behalf of privileges for trade, cultural activities and protection of intellectual property. 7. On the whole I feel that with China's demand for unqualified abrogation of extraterritorial jurisdiction sent to us 3 years ago and with the publication of the recent instruction to the Executive Yuan we could expect no great advantage from a spontaneous proposal of a compromise. I think it would be better to await a new communication from the Chinese Government. In the meantime we should consult with the British Government and possibly with the French but I would deprecate any intimate discussion with the Japanese Government. Their heralded change of attitude toward China has yet to be proved and identification with them would prejudice our position in Chinese popular opinion. 8. Finally, I feel confident that if we allow the Chinese Government to bring up the extraterritoriality issue as part of a general treaty revision, we shall be better able to utilize the inevitable partial relinquishment of past privileges in bargaining for it affects trade which is now threatened by numerous restrictions. Advantages thus gained will render the changed situation more palatable to American interests in China. JOHNSON 793.003/856: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) WASHINGTON, March 27, 1937-noon. 107. The Department desires that you seek an early opportunity to call upon an appropriate officer of the Foreign Office and make to him an oral statement (leaving with him as record of such oral statement a strictly confidential aide-mémoire) substantially as follows: "1. The Department of State has for some time been giving thought to the question of the possible practicability of there being made by the American Government an approach to the Chinese Government suggesting resumption of the extraterritorial[ity] negotiations which were interrupted in 1931 and have since been in abeyance. It has been our thought that the practicability of making such an approach should be considered in terms of the possibility of the approach being made simultaneously and on parallel lines by the American and the British Governments. It has been felt that the question of the opportuneness of such action at this time largely depends upon the question whether the resumption of such negotiations would be likely to have a disturbing effect upon the general situation in the Far East, with special reference to Sino-Japanese relations, and the question of the likelihood of the Chinese Government being willing to accept a draft of a treaty following substantially the lines of the American draft of July 14, 1931. (The American draft is similar to the British draft of June 6, 1931, except for Article 16: Reserve Areas, a copy of which article together with a copy of the Department's memorandum 35 was enclosed in Mr. Atherton's letter of July 25, 1931, to Mr. Orde.36) 2. Our Embassy in China has reported that during the recent plenary session of the Central Executive Committee there was adopted a resolution calling upon the Chinese Government to conduct negotiations for the abolition of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This resolution, quoted in an instruction to the Executive Yuan of March 6, was published in the National Government Gazette of March 9 but otherwise it has received little publicity. Our Embassy has received no intimation as to what action the Chinese Government will take in the matter. 38 3. Our Embassy has expressed the view that the resumption of extraterritoriality negotiations would not have a disturbing effect upon the general situation in the Far East; also the further view that in the light of China's request for unqualified abrogation of extraterritorial jurisdiction, as contained in the Chinese Foreign Office's note of January 18, 1934,37 in regard to the Sino-American Commercial Treaty of 1903, and in the light of the recent instruction to the Executive Yuan referred to above, we could expect no great advantage from volunteering a proposal of a compromise and that it would be better to await a new initiative by the Chinese Government. The Embassy expressed the view also that China would insist upon an agreement for a much more far-reaching abrogation of extraterritorial rights than that envisaged in 1931. 4. As it seems likely that pursuant to the instruction to the Executive Yuan referred to above the Chinese Government will in due course approach the interested foreign governments, there would appear to be a choice of two lines of action, one, that of a foreign government, or foreign governments, taking the initiative in approaching the Chinese Government, and the other, that of awaiting a move on the part of the Chinese Government. "For British text, see telegram of May 19, 1931, 9 a. m., from the Minister in China, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. III, pp. 854, 856. 25 See telegram No. 228, July 13, 1931, 5 p. m., to the Minister in China, ibid., p. 890. 36 Ray Atherton, Counselor of Embassy in the United Kingdom, and Charles William Orde, Head of the Far Eastern Department, British Foreign Office. See telegram No. 56, January 23, 1934, 5 p. m., from the Minister in China, Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. III, p. 525. "Signed at Shanghai, October 8, 1903, ibid., 1903, p. 91. 5. The Department feels that the question of extraterritoriality in China is a matter in which the British and American Governments have similar interests and concern and that the two Governments might advantageously continue as in the past to collaborate with each other. The American Government would therefore appreciate receiving the views and observations of the British Government in the premises. 6. It may be added that the American Government has not approached any other government in regard to the matter." Inform Department by cable of date when you make this communication and of any observations or comments offered by Foreign Office official.39 HULL 793.003/868: Telegram The Ambassador in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State NANKING, April 22, 1937-11 a. m. [Received 2:25 p. m.] 177. Our 173, April 20, 2 p. m.40 1. Two months have passed since the plenary session of the Central Executive Committee called upon the Government to negotiate for abolition of extraterritoriality (our 116, March 15, 2 p. m.). The vernacular press concerns itself almost daily with the question. As reported, Chinese organizations doubtless in part through official inspiration are petitioning the Government to act. Nevertheless, the Government gives appearance of lacking any definite program or plan to implement the Central Executive Committee's instructions and inquiries of the Foreign Office by an American newspaper correspondent have elicited vague replies which he interpreted as indicating a desire to show a lack of interest in the issue. 2. It is possible that this attitude is due to: (1) Desire to foster a sufficiently urgent public demand that the Foreign Office can approach the Diplomatic Missions on the ground that the Government can no longer ignore the people's wishes; (2) a belief that the Chinese case will be stronger as far as Japan is concerned after abolition of extraterritoriality has progressed farther in Manchukuo, thus making it inconsistent for Japan to promote her military to [control despite?] the nominal activity of native officials in Manchuria and object to Chinese jurisdiction over Japanese in intramural China; (3) an intention to entrust C. T. Wang," who continues to delay his departure, with opening negotiations with the United States. 39 Reporting the matter to the Ambassador in China in telegram No. 62, March 29, 3 p. m., the Department added that the British Foreign Office might refer it to the British Ambassador in China, who might "approach you". 40 Not printed. "Newly appointed Chinese Ambassador to the United States. |