862i.01/59: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Davis)

1199. For the Ambassador, for transmission to the Foreign Office.

I have transmitted to my Government your note of November 17th [16th]7 in reply to the memorandum submitted by me on the 11th of November regarding the island of Yap, to which my Government has directed me to reply as follows:

There would appear to be no difference of opinion with regard to the reservations made by President Wilson and Mr. Lansing with respect to the island of Yap during various discussions of the Supreme Council and the Council of Foreign Ministers at the Peace Conference. For clearer understanding of the issue as to whether, on the part of the United States, it was agreed that all the ex-German islands in the Pacific north of the equator should be allotted to Japan, your attention is drawn to the following facts:

On April 21st,8 at the meeting of President Wilson, Messrs. Lloyd George and Clemenceau—President Wilson, in reporting his conversation of that morning with Baron Makino and Count Chinda,9 stated among other things that he had reminded the Japanese delegates that it had been understood that Japan was to have the mandate for the islands in the north Pacific, although he had made a reserve in the case of the island of Yap, which he considered should be international.

At the meeting of Foreign Ministers held on April 30th, 1919, at 3 p.m., in a discussion relating to cables, Mr. Lansing stated that there was a relevant question which he would like on future occasion to discuss, namely, whether in the interests of cable communications it would not be desirable that the island of Yap be internationalized and administered by an international commission in control of cable lines, and that he merely raised the question, although not on the agenda, in order to give warning that the question was in his mind and that he would propose it for discussion at a later time. He suggested that it was not necessary to maintain that all the islands should have the same status but that the island of Yap should be held to constitute a special case. Baron Makino took the position that the status of the island of Yap should be decided before [Page 266] the question of cables, Mr. Balfour10 replying that while the status of the island was a matter of great importance he did not think that the question of cables could be deferred, as it must be settled in time for the treaty with Germany; Germany could be required to give up all title to the island, and its status thereafter could be discussed among the Allies.

At a meeting on May 1st, held in Mr. Pichon’s11 room, President Wilson stated that as the cable lines across the Pacific passed through the island of Yap, which thus became a general distributing center for the lines of communication for the north Pacific, Yap should not pass into the hands of one power. In the meeting of May 6th, in the discussion regarding the allotment of mandates in the Pacific, Mr. Lloyd George expressed his understanding that the Japanese should receive a mandate for certain islands north of the equator. According to the record, President Wilson consented in principle to this, with an explanatory statement that with respect to mandates the policy of the “open door” would have to be applied, and that there must be equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League. The island of Yap, having been previously cited as a special case for particular future consideration was not intended to be included among the “certain islands” designated as available to Japan under mandate. This seems obvious as Yap appears to have been the only island north of the equator in regard to the disposition of which there had existed any difference of opinion. There is no indication in the minutes of any further discussion with regard to this island. There is attached, as an appendix to the minutes of the meeting of May 7th, 4:15 p.m., a memorandum which obviously purported to be a codification of the agreement reached in the meeting of May 6th with reference to the north Pacific islands. Upon this we understand is based the assertion that Yap was assigned under mandate to Japan. Even this, however, does not expressly include all the islands in this particular category, although the qualifying word “certain” is omitted. According to the minutes of this meeting there was no discussion whatever on May 7th in respect to mandates. The minutes quoted the memorandum with the statement, merely, that “the following decisions were reached”. The erroneous publication of such a decision of which this Government was not aware would not validate it. The President recollects no proposal offered in this meeting to change the decision of May 6th and is certain he agreed to no variance of the original proposition. He understood it was generally agreed that the island of Yap had been previously excluded and reserved for future determination in connection with the consideration of cable communications. In view of the President’s reiterated objections to the inclusion of Yap in the mandate territories to be assigned to Japan, it is rather striking that the minutes of May 7th do not include any discussion whatever regarding Yap which would have been most natural had the President been prevailed upon to recede from his previous firm position. It is most logical that the withdrawal of the previously recorded objections would have been noted or at least that the decision would have been drafted in more specific [Page 267] language. It would seem clear that the President acted on the assumption that the island of Yap was not intended to be included in the decisions of May 6th and 7th.

It should also be noted that President Wilson, on August 19, 1919, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations made the following statement when questioned concerning the status of the island of Yap:

“It is one of the bases and centers of cable and radio communication on the Pacific, and I made the point that the disposition, or rather the control, of that island should be reserved for the general conference which is to be held in regard to the ownership and operation of the cables. That subject is mentioned and disposed of in this Treaty and that general cable conference is to be held.”

This statement evidences the understanding of the President, and it is interesting that though wide publicity was given to the President’s declaration at the time no comments were received by this Government from any nation indicating a contrary opinion. Furthermore, attention is called to the fact that the draft mandate covering the ex-German islands north of the equator,12 submitted to the meeting of the Heads of Delegations on December 24, 1919, contemplates that there may be a question as to what islands north of the equator should be allocated under mandate to Japan. Article 3 reads as follows:

“If any dispute should arise as to whether any particular island is or not covered by the above mandate the matter shall be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations whose decision shall be final.”

The draft was not accepted, primarily on account of objections raised by the Japanese, which, however, did not relate to this particular provision. The point is cited merely as indicating an understanding that definite agreement had not yet been reached as to the final disposition of all the islands north of the equator.

It might also be observed that, assuming for the sake of argument the conditional allocation to Japan, the terms of the mandate have not been accepted by Japan or even as yet approved by the principal interested powers or the League of Nations. In such case it would appear that until the island is accepted under mandate upon terms approved by the powers concerned the status of temporary occupation must exist, which, in the circumstances, does not signify a vested interest in the island, and which admits of present determination of the conditions or terms of authority, control and administration.

I am directed by the President to inform you that the Government of the United States cannot agree that the island of Yap was included in the decision of May 7th or in any other agreement of the Supreme Council. And in addition that as the island of Yap must form an indispensable part of the international communications it is essential that its free and unhampered use should not be limited or controlled by any one power. Even on the assumption that the island of Yap should be included among the islands held under mandate by Japan, it is not conceivable that other powers should not have free and unhampered access to, and use of, the island for the landing and operation of cables. This is a right which the United States would be disposed to grant upon any of its unfortified islands which may be essential for such purposes.

[Page 268]

The Government of the United States expresses the hope that the above statements of fact will convince the British Government of the correctness of the position of the United States with respect to the mandate over the island of Yap; and also that the British Government will concur in the view of the United States that even if Yap should be assigned under mandate to Japan all other powers should have free and unhampered access to the island for the landing and operation of cables.

Davis
  1. See telegram no. 1629, Nov, 17, 1920, from the Ambassador in Great Britain, p. 263.
  2. 1919.
  3. Baron (later Viscount) Nobuaki Makino and Viscount (later Count) Sutemi Chinda, Japanese delegates to the Peace Conference.
  4. Arthur James Balfour, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to October 1919.
  5. Stephen Pichon, French Minister of Foreign Affairs to Jan. 18, 1920.
  6. For texts of draft mandates of Dec 17, 1920, see vol. i, pp. 99 ff.