[Enclosure]
The President of the Council of the League of
Nations (Da
Cunha) to the Secretary of State
I am directed by the Council of the League of Nations to acknowledge
the receipt of your communication of February 21 on certain matters
connected with the Mandates which, under the provisions of the
Covenant, will define the responsibilities and limit the powers of
the Governments entrusted with the administration of various
territories, outside Europe, formerly in the possession of Germany
and Turkey.
The main points brought out in the American Note, if I may be
permitted to summarise them, are that the United States must be
consulted before any Mandates are allotted or defined, and that the
frankest discussion from all pertinent points of view should be
encouraged.
[Page 94]
In the “A”
Mandates, exception is taken to the possible limitation of
commercial opportunity as regards oil in Mesopotamia and in the “C”
Mandates to the allocation of the Island of Yap to Japan.
The Council wishes to express its deep satisfaction at the interest
shown by your Government in this question, which the Council has
long felt to be among the most important assigned to the League.
Undoubtedly, also, it is one of the most difficult, and the Council
not only welcomes but feels justified in claiming the sympathy and
support of the Governments which devised the scheme which the
Council is required to administer.
The most fundamental contention brought forward by the American Note
is that the “approval of the United States of America is essential
to the validity of any determination which may be reached”
respecting the Mandates which have been, or may be submitted to the
judgment of the Council. The United States was one of the leading
actors, both in the war and in the negotiations for peace. The
rights which it acquired are not likely to be challenged in any
quarter. But the American Government will itself recognise that the
situation is complicated by the fact that the United States, for
reasons which the Council would be the last to question, has so far
abstained from ratifying the Peace Treaty, and has not taken her
seat on the Council of the League of Nations.
The Council might easily have dwelt on the controversial aspects of
the American Note. But this procedure would ill-represent their true
attitude. They prefer to examine the subject from the broad basis of
international co-operation and friendship, in the belief that this
course will appeal to the spirit of justice of the Government and
people of the United States.
The Council has taken several important decisions with regard to
Mandates, which it confidently hopes will commend themselves to the
American Government.
The Council had already determined on February 21, before the receipt
of the American Note, to postpone the consideration of the “A”
Mandates for former Turkish possessions, including Mesopotamia. No
conclusions will therefore be reached with regard to “A” Mandates
until the United States Government has had an opportunity to express
its views.
The Council had expected to approve finally at the Session now being
held the “B” Mandates for the former Central African Colonies for
[of] Germany.
In view of the desire expressed by the United States, the Council is,
however, deferring its consideration of these Mandates until its
next Session which will probably take place in May or June. It is
[Page 95]
hoped that the delay
will not hamper the administrative progress of these
territories.
The Council invites the United States to take part in the discussions
at its forthcoming meeting when the final decisions as to the “A”
and “B” Mandates will, it is hoped, be taken. A problem so intricate
and involved as that of Mandates can hardly be handled by the
interchange of formal notes. It can only be satisfactorily solved by
personal contact and by direct exchange of opinion.
Not only do such direct negotiations, which correspond to the true
spirit of the League of Nations effect an increase of freedom,
flexibility and speed, but they create a spirit of mutual good-will
and co-operation among people meeting around the same table.
Regarding the third type of Mandates, the “C” group of former German
possessions in South [West?] Africa and the
Pacific, the Council has not the advantage of the same liberty of
action as in the “A” and “B” types. The “C” Mandates were defined by
the Council at its Meeting in Geneva on December 17, 1920. The main
American objection in this case, it is understood from Your
Excellency’s Note, is to the effect that the Island of Yap was
included by the Council in the Mandate given to Japan, whereas Your
Excellency states that the United States has on several occasions
refused to agree to the allocation of this Island to any one
State.
The Council of the League of Nations would remind Your Excellency
that the allocation of all the Mandated territories is a function of
the Supreme Council and not of the Council of the League. The League
is concerned, not with the allocation but with the administration of
these territories. Having been notified in the name of the Allied
and Associated Powers that all the Islands North of the Equator had
been allocated to Japan, the Council of the League merely fulfilled
its responsibility of defining the terms of the Mandate.
Consequently, if a misunderstanding exists as to the allocation of
the Island of Yap, that misunderstanding would seem to be between
the United States and the Principal Allied Powers rather than
between the United States and the League. However, in view of the
American contention the Council of the League has hastened to
forward the American Note to the Governments of France, Great
Britain, Italy and Japan.
The Council hopes that these explanations will prove satisfactory to
the United States Government, and that reciprocal good-will will
find a solution in harmony with the generous spirit which inspired
the principle of the Mandates.
Gastao da Cunha
Paris, March 1,
1921.
