. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As I have already reported in my telegram No. 58, of August 18, 2 p.m.,
Belgium has decided to elicit the help of the American, British and,
possibly, French governments in an effort to induce China to put into
effect the desired modus vivendi, and a Note Verbale to this effect, dated August 21, has
been communicated to me, a copy and translation of which is enclosed.
…
[Enclosure
1—Translation]
The Belgian Foreign
Office to the American
Embassy
Brussels, August 21,
1926.
Note Verbale
In the month of April last, the Chinese Government, basing itself
upon an erroneous interpretation of article 46 of the
Chinese-Belgian treaty of 1865*, advised the Belgian Government that it
denounced this treaty and that it considered it as ceasing to take
effect as from October 27 next. In making this announcement, the
Chinese Government claimed to make use of the faculty of
denunciation which, by the terms of this article, is reserved solely
for the Belgian Government.
The latter immediately informed the Chinese Government that it was
impossible for it to admit of such an interpretation of article 46
of the treaty of 1865, but that it was disposed to consider the
revision of this instrument as soon as China was provided with a
stable Government and the conclusions of the work of the Tariff
Conference and the Commission on Extraterritoriality,79 which are
being held
[Page 988]
in China by
virtue of the accords concluded at Washington on February 6, 1922,
were known.
In spite of the strong remonstrances of the Belgian Minister in
Peking, the Chinese Government refuses to abandon its standpoint; at
best it declared that if a new treaty was not concluded by October
27 next, it would endeavor to examine the possibility of finding a
provisional modus vivendi which, while not
disregarding the interests of Belgium, would not in any way injure
the legitimate rights of China.
The Minister of Belgium in Peking was then directed to confirm to the
Chinese Government that the Belgian Government did not admit of its
interpretation of article 46 of the treaty and that it was unable to
consider negotiations before the termination of the Tariff
Conference and the meetings of the Commission on
Extraterritoriality. But he was requested to add at the same time
that Belgium would not refuse to examine the possibility of
concluding a provisional modus vivendi with
China, on the condition that this modus
vivendi would stipulate that the clauses of the treaty of
1865—with the exception of article 46 and the provisions which might
be modified by the two Conferences—would remain in force until the
conclusion of a new accord.
In view of the obstinacy of the Chinese Government, the Belgian
Government, being uncertain as to the bases of the modus vivendi which China will propose, informed the
Government of Peking that it regretted to have to state that there
was complete disagreement between China and Belgium as regards the
interpretation of a clause of the Chinese-Belgian treaty of 1865,
that this disagreement constitutes a conflict which, by the terms of
article 38, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court of
International Justice,80 falls within the province of the Court for
those States which have accepted the obligatory character of this
provision and that, China and Belgium having on May 13, 1922, and
March 10, 1926, respectively, recognized this character, the Belgian
Government was disposed to submit the case to the Court of The
Hague.
However, as the Belgian Government strongly desires not to be forced
to have recourse to this procedure, it has directed the Belgian
Minister in Peking to request the Chinese Government to inform him
immediately, and at the latest before September 3 next, of the bases
of the modus vivendi which it stated it was
disposed to conclude until circumstances should enable it to enter
upon the negotiation of a new treaty. (See herewith the despatch
addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium to His
Excellency the Minister of China in Brussels, under date of August
3, 1926.)
[Page 989]
Filled with the broadest spirit of conciliation and the greatest
goodwill toward China, but unable to consider concessions which
would sacrifice the security of its nationals and of their
enterprises in that country, Belgium is firmly resolved, if China
maintains its point of view, to bring the conflict before the Court
of Justice of The Hague. Nevertheless, being desirous of reaching an
equitable solution without having recourse to an extreme solution,
it takes the liberty of appealing to the signatory Powers of the
Washington accords of February 6, 1922, and to request the
Government of the United States of America to be so good as to exert
its influence upon (agir auprès de) the
Peking Government with a view to obtaining that the stipulations of
the modus vivendi which it is prepared to
sign with China be acceptable: they could only be so on condition
that Belgium is not placed on an inferior footing in regard to the
other Powers having treaties.
As the Chinese Government has not concealed its intention of
adopting, as soon as circumstances will permit, an identical
attitude toward the other Powers with treaties, this question does
not interest only Belgium. It appears of a nature to engage the
attention also of all the Powers which have concluded “unequal
treaties” with China.
[Subenclosure—Translation]
The Belgian Foreign Minister (Vandervelde) to the Chinese Minister in Belgium (Wang King-ky)
Brussels, August 3,
1926.
Mr. Minister: I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of the letter which Your Excellency was good
enough to write me on the 27th of this [last]
month.
The Belgian Government regrets to have to state that there is
complete disagreement between China and Belgium as regards the
interpretation of a clause of the Chinese-Belgian treaty of
1865.
This disagreement constitutes a conflict, which, by the terms of
article 38, paragraph 2, of the statute of the International Court
of Justice, falls within the province of the Court for those States
which have accepted the obligatory character of this provision.
China and Belgium having, on May 13, 1922, and March 10, 1926,
respectively, recognized this character, the Belgian Government is
disposed to submit the case to the Court of The Hague.
However, as the Belgian Government strongly desires not to be forced
to have recourse to this procedure, I have directed our Minister in
Peking to request the Chinese Government to inform him immediately,
and at the latest before the expiration of a month’s time, of the
bases of the modus vivendi which it stated it
was disposed
[Page 990]
to conclude
until circumstances enable us to enter upon the negotiation of a new
treaty.
I take [etc.]
