Office of the Historian

861.77 Chinese Eastern/249

The Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs (Karakhan) to Marshal Chang Hsüeh-liang39

[Translation]

Sir: On July 22, 1929, the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Tsai, was at his request received by the Consul General of the U. S. S. R. in Harbin, Mr. Melnikov, to whom he made the statement that he had just arrived from Mukden, and that he had been authorized by the Mukden Government to make the following proposals with a view to regulating the Soviet-Chinese conflict on the Chinese Eastern Railway:

1)
The arrested Soviet laborers and employees are to be released.
2)
The government of the U. S. S. R. is to appoint the director of the Chinese Eastern Railway, and his assistant.
3)
A conference of representatives of both governments is to be called, which is to settle the conflict on the Chinese Eastern Railway as speedily as possible.
4)
The Soviet government may make the statement that it does not recognize the order of things prevailing after the conflict, and that it does not prejudice the impending negotiations,* and
5)
If the Soviet government agrees to these proposals, Mr. Chang Hsüeh-liang will apply for the consent of the Nanking Government to these proposals.

[Page 266]

Mr. Melnikov declined to discuss these proposals of Mr. Tsai’s, pointing out that he had no authority to do so, and that the point of view of the Union government was laid down in its note of July 13th. However, in view of Mr. Tsai’s request to communicate this proposal to the Union government, Mr. Melnikov communicated the proposal of the Mukden Government to the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.

Guided by its pacific policy, and not wishing to leave unused even this possibility of settling the conflict by means of an agreement, the Union government yielded, and instructed Mr. Melnikov in Harbin to give to Mr. Tsai, for communication to you as the head of the Mukden Government, the following reply:

  • “a) After the high-handed actions on the part of the Chinese authorities on the Chinese Eastern Railway, the Union government is unable to treat with confidence the proposals emanating from the Mukden Government through the medium of the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Tsai.
  • “b) In the event, however, that the Nanking Government or the Mukden Government should officially make to the government of the U. S. S. R. the proposals submitted as emanating from* Mr. Chang Hsüeh-liang, to wit:
    1.
    Release of the arrested Soviet laborers and employees;
    2.
    Appointment, by the government of the U. S. S. R. of the director of the Chinese Eastern Railway, and of his assistant;
    3.
    Calling a conference with a view to settling the conflict on the Chinese Eastern Railway with the least delay;

and if, in addition to this, item 4 of the proposal of the Mukden Government will be altered in the following way:

Both sides agree that the situation which has formed itself on the Chinese Eastern Railway after the conflict is bound to be altered in conformity with the Peking and Mukden agreements of 1924,

—“the Union government will adopt a favorable attitude to these proposals”.

This answer was communicated by Mr. Melnikov to Mr. Tsai in Harbin on July 25, at 4 p.m.

On July 30 of the current year, Mr. Tsai arrived at the station Manchuli, and informed Mr. Melnikov who was then already on the territory of the Soviet Union, of his desire to meet him for the purpose of handing him the proposal of the Mukden Government.

On August 1, Mr. Tsai handed to Mr. Melnikov your letter addressed to myself, dated July 29 of the current year, the contents of which were communicated to me by telegraph.

[Page 267]

I feel constrained to state that the proposal laid down in your letter of July 29 differs essentially from the proposal which at your instance Mr. Tsai made to Mr. Melnikov on July 22.

And first of all in the following:

  • First, in your letter is altogether omitted the proposal made on your behalf by Mr. Tsai on July 22 concerning the immediate appointment, by the government of the U. S. S. R., of the director of the Chinese Eastern Railway, and his assistant;
  • Secondly, instead of the formula suggested by the Union government to the effect that the situation created on the Chinese Eastern Railway after the conflict should be changed in conformity with the Peking agreement and the Mukden agreement, your letter contains the proposal of the legalization of the prevailing situation on the Chinese Eastern Railway, brought about by the forcible seizure of the railway, which is an obvious violation of the Peking agreement and the Mukden agreement.

Thus, I am bound to establish the fact that, contrary to its own proposal of July 22, the Mukden Government by its subsequent proposal frustrates the possibility of settling the conflict by an agreement which would be possible only by accepting the proposals of the Federal government of July 25. This creates a situation pregnant with new and serious complications, the whole responsibility for which wholly and fully rests with the Mukden and Nanking Government[s].

Accept [etc.]

L. Karakhan

[ Moscow ,] August 1, 1929.
  1. Translation from text printed in the Moscow Izvestia, No. 175, August 2, 1929; copy transmitted to the Department by the Chargé in Latvia in his despatch No. 6339, August 10; received August 24, 1929.↩
  2. literally: that it imposes no obligations at the impending negotiations. Note of translator. [Footnote on the original translation.]↩
  3. literally: submitted on behalf of. [Translator’s note in the original.]↩