Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1925, Volume I

707.1161/22: Telegram

The Minister in China ( Schurman ) to the Secretary of State

Peking , March 11, 1925—3 p.m.
[Received March 11—11:20 a.m.]

100. Your 30, February 28, 4 p.m.

1. I called meeting of Legation heads, March 3, to consider admission of Karakhan as member and dean diplomatic body. Excepting Dutch and Belgian representatives, who had not heard from their Governments, all agreed in substance to plan of limiting diplomatic body, as in all other capitals, to ceremonial functions and entrusting care of special and common interests of treaty powers to suitable group or groups of diplomatic representatives.

2. Meeting adjourned after prolonged discussion. Dutch and Belgian representatives having in few days reported to me their instructions, which were favorable, I called another meeting for March 10th. I opened it by advocating, in addition to a ceremonial diplomatic body, one group embracing all ministers now in Peking as unofficial instrument for transaction common treaty business with Chinese Government and consular bodies. Others advocated special committees such as protocol powers, etc. Obvious point was made against plan of having one group with all ministers in it, that some countries had no special treaty rights and Karakhan might equally with their representatives claim seat in such a group. German Minister, who is persona grata to all his colleagues, said that he had no more right to be included than Karakhan. It was pointed out in reply that the proposed body being informal could constitute itself as it liked and Karakhan would have no more right to demand admission than to a social gathering. After long discussion this plan was unanimously adopted.

3. It was suggested we communicate the result orally to Karakhan and the Chinese Government. I expressed the opinion however that in view of the radical change we were making in the character and functions of the Peking diplomatic body we should send written communications. This view prevailed and I appointed Italian Minister (who is friend of Karakhan) and British Chargé (whose Government had sent very definite instructions and with whom I had conferred in advance) a committee to draft for submission to a later meeting the necessary notes. I trust the whole subject can be disposed of next week.

4. So long as Soviet Russia claims to be a protocol power it will be necessary to find some modus vivendi with Karakhan when the group is handling protocol business. Those who know Karakhan best think this will not be difficult once he is given recognition as dean, the lack of which he has hitherto keenly felt.

5. Recently Karakhan sent the protocol powers a note protesting against the erection of hurdles by the American guard on what he called the “Russian glacis.” He was informed by powers in reply with appropriate references to the protocols of 1901⁶⁰ and 1904⁶¹ that there was no “Russian glacis”; that the entire glacis was international property; that the American guard in holding the portion of it adjoining the Russian Legation property were merely discharging the duties which had been assigned them by the senior commandant and that equitation was a part of their military training.

Schurman

60. Foreign Relations, 1901, appendix (Affairs in China), p. 312.
61. John V. A. MacMurray (ed.), Treaties and Agreements With and Concerning China, 1894–1919 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1921), vol. i, p. 315.