893.00 Nanking/202
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Johnson)84
Basis of Settlement of Nanking Incident
Legation’s telegram No. 752 of July 22, 4 p.m., reported that Kuo Tai-chi, Nationalist Commissioner of Foreign Affairs at Shanghai, acting under instructions from C. C. Wu, Nationalist Minister for Foreign Affairs at Nanking, had presented to the American Consul General the following statement entitled, “Basis for the Settlement of the Nanking Incident.”
[Here follows text of six points listed as a basis for settlement in telegram No. 752, July 22, 4 p.m., from the Minister in China, printed ante, page 225.]
For the Legation’s guidance the Department has the following comments to make upon the above proposal, and for convenience has numbered its comments 1–6 to correspond to the six paragraphs of the proposal:
- 1.
- It is of course far preferable that the assumption of responsibility by the so-called Nationalist Government at Nanking should [Page 233] be absolute and not complicated by a statement which might be interpreted as indicating that it is in some way limited by principles of international law. What is essential is that we should be convinced of the sincerity of their assumption of responsibility. If the Nanking Government desires merely to show that it is living up to the principles of international law I would suggest that the first paragraph read: “The Nationalist Government of the Republic of China, having investigated the Nanking incident, finds that it was instigated by communists prior to the establishment of the Nationalist Government at Nanking. However, being desirous of observing the well-accepted principles of international law, the Nationalist Government assumes full responsibility for the Nanking incident and all damages growing out of the same.” My reason for making these suggestions is that I do not wish to have it appear that this Government is imposing liability on the Chinese, regardless of the principles of international law.
- 2.
- I agree with you that the detailed statement of the measures already taken against those implicated in the incident should if possible include a promise as to the action to be taken with a view to the eventual punishment of guilty persons. It is of course quite likely that they will not actually be in a position to give effect to any such punishments as they may promise to inflict; and I should not wish to insist to the point of causing them to substitute other victims with a view to satisfying us. It seems essential, however, that they should at least take such action as would publicly disavow and stigmatize as worthy of punishment those known to have been personally responsible for the outrages.
- 3.
- I am prepared to accept a statement of profound regret in lieu of an apology from Chiang Kai Shek. I also feel that in giving an express undertaking to prohibit officials from violence and agitation against American lives and property the so-called Nationalist Government should include in such undertaking a promise that its officials will not support or give countenance to agitation and violence against American lives and legitimate interests. This wording would appear to cover all foreseeable situations without specifically mentioning boycotts, strikes, et cetera, as the British would appear to wish to do.
- 4.
- Assuming that responsibility for the Nanking incident is satisfactorily acknowledged in Paragraph One of the proposed basis of settlement, the phrase at the beginning of Paragraph Four, reading “Upon the Nationalist Government accepting responsibility according to the general rules of international law” would seem to be unnecessary and inappropriate. If this phrase were eliminated I should see no objection to consenting to the appointment of a Chinese-American [Page 234] joint commission provided it were clearly understood that the duties of such a joint commission would be confined to the ascertainment of facts and the fixing of the amount of damages to be paid.
- 5.
- Of course, we have no regret to express for what the so-called Nationalist authorities term a bombardment but which in fact was a protective barrage placed around a house in which Americans and others were under attack for the purpose of enabling those Americans to escape with their lives. I have no objection, however, to stating to the so-called Nationalist Government that this barrage was laid down by the American destroyers because of the necessity of affording protection to Americans whose lives were threatened and that the Government of the United States regrets that a situation arose which made such action necessary.
- 6.
- While there would of course be no objection to making clear once more that this Government would be prepared to take up the consideration of treaty revision upon the conditions indicated in my statement of January 2785 and various instructions in that regard it should be made altogether plain that the undertaking of such a revision (which obviously involves considerations of a wholly different order) cannot be demanded in return for a fair settlement of wrongs done our nationals.
The Government of the United States desires that this incident, in so far as it concerns the United States, should be settled and that the American Consulate at Nanking should be reoccupied. It is therefore to be hoped that the Minister will seek to bring about such a settlement at the earliest favorable opportunity.