511.3 B 1/288½
Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation With the British Ambassador (Howard), January 8, 1925
Geneva Protocol. The Ambassador asked whether the Secretary had had an opportunity to take up with the President the subject discussed at the last interview (January 5/25). The Secretary said that he had done so and that the President agreed with the views the Secretary had expressed.
The Secretary said that he felt it necessary to emphasize the point that this Government desired that the British Government should act entirely on its own responsibility, so far as this Government is concerned, in dealing with the Geneva Protocol. It was particularly necessary that nothing should be said in the House of Commons or elsewhere that there was any agreement or understanding with the United States. The Secretary said that if, for example, it should be said in answer to a question in the House of Commons that any action or reservation of the British Government was satisfactory to the United States Government, it would cause great difficulty here. It would at once be asked what arrangement had been made and why the President, through the Secretary, should have entered into any understanding upon such a subject.
The Ambassador entirely agreed and said that of course there was no agreement or understanding with the United States Government in the matter. He appreciated the importance of avoiding any misapprehension on this score. The Ambassador again referred to the difficulties that might arise in applying the sanctions, especially the economic sanctions, with respect to the relations between Great Britain and the United States, and the desire of Great Britain to avoid any such embarrassment. He repeated that it was the cardinal policy of Great Britain to act in cooperation with the United States. The Secretary said that it was of course easy to foresee possible contingencies in which the attempt to enforce such economic sanctions would run counter to the interests of the United States, either when the United States was taking action which it thought justified in the circumstances, or was dealing with a third Power that was the subject of such sanctions and the rights of the United States as a neutral would be interfered with. The Ambassador referred to the Monroe Doctrine and action that might be taken under the Monroe Doctrine if there were difficulties between two of the Latin American Republics and one appealed to the Council of the League and sanctions were applied. The Secretary said that this Government, not being a signatory of the Protocol or represented at Geneva, felt that it should not be called up to take the responsibility of opposing the Protocol. [Page 20] But the particular difficulties to which the Ambassador referred had their analogy in other difficulties that might arise elsewhere and the Secretary supposed that the British Government would be alive to all the possibilities and that the action which the Ambassador had suggested as possible, in making reservations, would be taken in view of the British Government’s own interests.
The Ambassador said that he felt that the frankest way in such emergencies was the best way, and therefore he was disposed to think that instead of making a reservation that the British Government in any contingency would be at liberty to consult with a Government not a member of the League, they might better say that they desired to retain the privilege of consulting with the United States and making its [their] arrangements in view of the interests of the United States. The Ambassador felt that it would be well for the British Government to say frankly to its associates in the League that there could be no hope of applying the sanctions successfully in opposition to the views of the United States as they might be entertained by its people when a contingency arose.
The Secretary reiterated the importance of the United States Government remaining entirely separate from the discussion.29
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- The remainder of the memorandum deals with other matters.↩