862i.01/34: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France ( Wallace )
107. Referring again to your 116, February 17, and our Number 103, February 20, 1921, 11 p.m., you will please deliver the following note immediately to the President of the Council of the League of Nations, setting it forth exactly as herewith transmitted, including ascription and signature.
The reason for this careful instruction is that as Ambassador you have no official contact with the League and no recognized capacity even as a conduit for the transmission of communications. It is desired that the communication should be presented and delivered as coming directly from this Government. We have recourse to the method of sending it through you in order to expedite and assure its delivery to the President of the League, to whom it is addressed.
You will observe that the communication contemplates the delivery at the same time of a copy of the note of this Government dated November 20, 1920, addressed to Curzon, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,95 on the subject of the nature of a mandate. It is desired that you will deliver with the communication set forth below a clear copy of said note of November 20, of which you have a copy.
“To the President and Members of the Council of the League of Nations:
1. The Government of the United States has received information that the Council of the League of Nations at its meeting which is to be held in Paris on this date, proposes to consider at length the subject of mandates, including their terms, provisions and allocation, and accordingly takes this opportunity to deliver to the Council of the League of Nations a copy of its note addressed under date of November 20, 1920, to His Excellency Lord Curzon of Kedleston, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which the views of the United States are quite fully set forth regarding the nature of the responsibilities of mandatory powers.
The attention of the Council of the League of Nations is particularly invited to the request therein made on behalf of this Government that the draft mandate forms intended to be submitted to the League of Nations be communicated to this Government for its consideration before submission to the Council of the League, in order that the Council might thus have before it an expression of the opinion of the Government of the United States on the form of such mandates, and a clear indication of the basis upon which the approval of this Government, which is essential to the validity of any determinations which may be reached, might be anticipated and [Page 90] received. It was furthermore stated in said note that the establishment of the mandate principle, a new principle in international relations and one in which the public opinion of the world is taking especial interest, would seem to require the frankest discussion from all pertinent points of view, and the opinion was expressed that suitable publicity should be given to the drafts of mandates which it is the intention to submit to the Council in order that the fullest opportunity might be afforded to consider their terms in relation to the obligations assumed by the mandatory powers and the respective interests of all governments who deem themselves concerned or affected.
A copy of this note was transmitted to the Governments of France and Italy96 requesting an interpretation by each government of the provisions of the agreement between Great Britain, Italy and France signed at Sevres on August 10, 1920, relating to the creation of spheres of special interests in Anatolia, in the light of this government’s note to the British Government, of November 20, 1920. A reply has thus far been received only from the French Government,97 in which attention is directed to Article X of the so-called Sevres Treaty, which provides, in favor of nationals of third Powers, for all economic purposes, free access to the so-called zones of special interest.
2. This Government is also in receipt of information that the Council of the League of Nations, at its meeting at Geneva on December 17, last, approved among other mandates a mandate to Japan embracing ‘all the former German islands situated in the Pacific Ocean and lying north of the Equator’.98 The text of this mandate to Japan which was received by this Government and which, according to available information, was approved by the Council, contains the following statement:
‘Whereas the principal Allied and Associated Powers agreed that in accordance with Article XXII, Part I, (Covenant of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty, a mandate should be conferred upon His Majesty the Emperor of Japan to administer the said islands, and have proposed that the mandate should be formulated in the following terms: Et cetera.’
The Government of the United States takes this opportunity respectfully and in the most friendly spirit to submit to the President and Members of the Council of the League that the statement above quoted is incorrect and is not an accurate recital of the facts. On the contrary, the United States which is distinctly included in the very definite and constantly used descriptive phrase “the Principal Allied and Associated Powers”, has not agreed to the terms or provisions of the mandate which is embodied in this text, nor has it agreed that a mandate should be conferred upon Japan covering all the former German islands situated in the Pacific Ocean and lying north of the Equator.
The United States has never given its consent to the inclusion of the Island of Yap in any proposed mandate to Japan, but, on the [Page 91] other hand, at the time of a discussion of a mandate covering the former German Islands in the Pacific north of the Equator, and in the course of said discussion, President Wilson, acting on behalf of this Government, was particular to stipulate that the question of the disposition of the Island of Yap should be reserved for future consideration. Subsequently, this Government was informed that certain of “The Principal Allied and Associated Powers” were under the impression that the reported decision of the Supreme Council, sometimes described as the Council of Four, taken at its meeting on May 7, 1919, included or inserted the Island of Yap in the proposed mandate to Japan.99 This Government in notes addressed to the Governments of Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan,1 has set forth at length its contention that Yap had in fact been excepted from this proposed mandate and was not to be included therein. Furthermore, by direction of President Wilson, the respective governments, above mentioned, were informed that the Government of the United States could not concur in the reported decision of May 7, 1919, of the Supreme Council.2 The information was further conveyed that the reservations which had previously been made by this government regarding the Island of Yap were based on the view that the Island of Yap necessarily constitutes an indispensable part of any scheme or practicable arrangement of cable communication in the Pacific, and that its free and unhampered use should not be limited or controlled by any one Power.
While this Government has never assented to the inclusion of the Island of Yap in the proposed mandate to Japan, it may be pointed out that even if one or more of the other Principal Allied and Associated Powers were under a misapprehension as to the inclusion of this island in the reported decision of May 7, 1919, nevertheless the notes, above mentioned, of the Government of the United States make clear the position of this Government in the matter. At the time when the several notes were addressed to the respective governments above mentioned, a final agreement had not been reached as to the terms and allocation of mandates covering the former German islands in the Pacific. Therefore, the position taken in the matter by the President on behalf of this Government and clearly set forth in the notes referred to, necessarily had the result of effectively withdrawing any suggestion or implication of assent, mistakenly imputed to this Government, long before December 17, 1920, the date of the Council’s meeting at Geneva.
As one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the United States has an equal concern and an inseparable interest with the other Principal Allied and Associated Powers in the overseas possessions of Germany, and concededly an equal voice in their disposition, which it is respectfully submitted cannot be undertaken or effectuated without its assent. The Government of the United States therefore respectfully states that it cannot regard itself as bound by the terms and provisions of said mandate and desires to [Page 92] record its protest against the reported decision of December 17 last, of the Council of the League of Nations in relation thereto, and at the same time to request that the Council, having obviously acted under a misapprehension of the facts, should reopen the question for the further consideration, which the proper settlement of it clearly requires.
Bainbridge Colby
Secretary of State of the United
States.”
- Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. ii, p. 669.↩
- See instruction no. 681, Dec. 1, 1920, to the Ambassador in France, Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. ii, p. 674.↩
- Note of Jan. 12, 1921, from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, ibid., p. 675.↩
- See note of Feb. 17, 1921, from the Secretary General of the League of Nations, p. 118.↩
- See telegram no. 598, Nov. 19, 1920, from the Chargé in Japan, vol. ii, p. 264.↩
- See telegram no. 1136, Nov. 9, 1920, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, ibid., p. 263.↩
- See telegram no. 1199, Dec. 4, 1920, to the Ambassador in Great Britain, ibid., p. 265.↩