861.77 Chinese Eastern/614: Telegram
The Minister in Latvia (Coleman) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 6—3:40 p.m.]
92. Reference my telegram 91, December 4, 5 p.m.83 Moscow Izvestia of December 4 publishes communiqué from the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs stating that Tsai Yun-sheng on behalf of the Mukden Government and Simanovsky on behalf of the Soviets signed on December 3rd at Mkolsk-Ussurisk a protocol containing the following points:
1. Tsai declared on behalf of the Mukden Government that Lu is to be removed from his position as chairman of the Board of the Chinese Eastern Railway.
After the removal of Lu the Soviet Government “will be prepared to nominate for the posts of manager and assistant manager of the Chinese Eastern Railway other persons than Messrs. Emshanov and Eismont”. The Soviet Government however “reserves the right to appoint Messrs. Emshanov and Eismont to other positions on the Chinese Eastern Railway.”
2. Tsai stated that the Mukden Government “will observe the Mukden and the Peiping agreements strictly in general as well as in particular.” Simanovsky “declared on his part that the Government of the U. S. S. R. which has always adhered to the agreements existing between China and the U. S. S. R. will of course observe them strictly in general as well as in particular.” In the same number of the Izvestia the statement of the American Government expressing the hope that the settlement of the Soviet-Mukden conflict be effected by peaceful means and the Soviet reply thereto84 were published in full. The same paper also devotes its leading [article?] to a bitter attack upon the Governments of the United States, France and Great Britain for what it describes as their “attempt by means of overt interference to frustrate the beginning of a settlement of the Soviet-Chinese conflict.”
[Page 403]“Who has empowered these Governments”, the editorial asks, “to take upon themselves the protection of the Kellogg Pact; the pact does not contain provisions regarding the playing of such a role by any individual states. When and to whom has the Soviet Government indicated its willingness to receive suggestions and advice regarding questions of its own foreign policy in connection with matters which do not concern the states offering such advice?”
The editorial then charges that the action of the powers was not prompted by any desire to prevent the violation of the obligations of the Kellogg Pact but for the purpose “in conjunction with the Nanking Government …85 of exercising pressure upon the negotiations between the U. S. S. R. and Mukden at a moment when these negotiations were already presenting the possibility of a genuine and speedy settlement of the conflict.”
It is pointed out that an agreement with China that would result in the return of the railway to the joint Soviet-Chinese administration would interfere with the plans of “the American and French imperialists”. “American capitalism” desires to gain possession of the railway and France hopes to obtain its share when the railway is divided up. The editorial “notes with satisfaction” that “Japan, Italy and Germany did not join in the action and that they thereby refrained from an unfriendly act in respect to the U. S. S. R.”