Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1929, Volume II

861.77 Chinese Eastern/622: Telegram

The Chargé in France (Armour) to the Secretary of State

Paris, December 7, 1929—10 a.m.
[Received 1:10 p.m.⁸⁷]

550. I have this morning received from the Foreign Office the reply of the Soviet Government, transmitted through the French Government, to your statement in accordance with instructions contained in the Department’s telegram 393, November 30, 8 p.m.

The following is a translation of the covering note from the Foreign Office dated December 6, 1929:

“In conformity with the desire of [expressed by] the Embassy of the United States in its note of December 1st, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has not failed to invite the Ambassador of the French Republic at Moscow to remit to the Soviet Government, in the name of the American Government, the declaration the text of which accompanied the aforementioned communication of December 1st of the Embassy of the United States.

M. Jean Herbette, Ambassador of the Republic at Moscow, hastened to remit this declaration on Tuesday, December 3, to M. Litvinoff, Assistant Commissaire to the Foreign Affairs of the U. R. S. S., leaving with him at the same time a similar communication in the name of the French Government.

The Soviet Government having sent to the Ambassador of the Republic a declaration in reply to the communications made to it, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has the honor to send herewith to the Embassy of the United States the text, translated into French, of the Soviet reply to the American declaration.”

The following is the text of the Soviet note:

“Moscow, December 5 [3], 1929. Reply of the Soviet Government to the American declaration.

[(1)] The U. R. S. S. has practiced since the first day of its existence a policy of peace and, not following the example of the powers, it has not once had recourse to acts of war, unless one counts the necessary measures of defense calumniating [called] into action by a direct attack on the Union or by armed intervention of certain powers in its domestic affairs. It has constantly followed this policy of peace, and it has the intention to follow it, independently of the Treaty of Paris for the Renunciation of War.

(2) The Government of Nanking, in the course of the last few years, turning aside from the methods which habitually serve [to] resolve, by diplomacy, the disputes which have arisen, has practiced towards the U. R. S. S. [a] policy of provocation which consists of violating the usual international regulations and treaties, although these treaties had not been imposed on China by armed force or other compulsory measures, but had been concluded on the basis of full equality and good will, and although the Soviet Union, as is known, had spontaneously abandoned in these treaties [the] extraterritorial rights, consular jurisdiction and other privileges, the suppression of which the Chinese Government has vainly endeavored up to the present to obtain from the other powers.

(3) The culminating point of this policy has been the seizure of the Chinese Eastern Railway, without any warning and without previous notification of any claim, in violation of the existing agreements on the conjoint administration of the railway.

(4) The Soviet Government considers that like conduct on the part of the Government of Nanking, if it had taken place vis-à-vis the United States of America, Great Britain or France, would have been considered by the Governments of these countries a sufficient pretext for invoking the reservations made when signing the Treaty of Paris for the Renunciation of War. The Soviet Government has declared, in its time, that it did not recognize these reservations and that it had no intention of invoking them.

(5) The Nanking Government has not limited itself to the illegal seizure of the Chinese Eastern Railway, but has mobilized along the Soviet-Manchurian frontier an army, of which certain units in accord with the Russian counter-revolutionary bands which it contains have executed systematic attacks against the U. R. S. S. penetrating into Soviet territory, firing on units of the Red army and on the frontier villages, pillaging and violating the peaceful population and causing, by its acts, considerable loss of life and property. In spite of the repeated warnings given to the Nanking Government, by the intermediary of the German Government, these attacks have not ceased and [but?] they have rather multiplied and become more and more intense. These attacks have obliged the Soviet army of the Far East, in the interest of the defense and protection of the peaceful population of the frontier region, to take countermeasures. Thus the acts of the Red army have been caused by consideration[s] of legitimate defense, absolutely necessary, and do not constitute to any degree the violation of obligations, whatever they be, resulting from [the] Treaty of Paris; this cannot be said of the armed forces which are on Chinese territory and in Chinese ports and which belong to powers which have today addressed identical declarations to the Government of the Union.

(6) The Government of the Union notes that the Government of the United States of America has forwarded its declaration at the moment when the Soviet and Mukden Governments had already come to an agreement on a series of terms and when direct pourparlers are taking place which open up the possibility of a rapid settlement of the Soviet-Chinese conflict.

By reason of this circumstance, the démarche in question cannot fail to be considered as a pressure, which nothing justifies, on the pourparlers, and consequently it can in no way be considered as a friendly act.

(7) The Government of the Union notes in addition that the Treaty of Paris for the Renunciation of War does not envisage, either by an individual state or by a group of states, the putting into effect of this pact.

In any case, the Government of the Union has never stated that it agreed that the states (whichever they may be) in their own name, or by virtue of a mutual understanding between themselves, should arrogate to themselves such a right.

(8) The Government of the Union declares that the Soviet-Manchurian conflict can only be settled by way of direct pourparlers between the Soviet Union and China on the basis of terms which are known to China and which are already accepted by the Government of Mukden, and it cannot admit the intervention of anybody in these pourparlers or in the conflict.

(9) In conclusion the Government of the Union cannot fail to express its astonishment that the Government of the United States, which, by its own will, does not entertain any official relations with the Government of the Soviet Union, should find it possible to address to [the] latter advice and recommendations.”

Armour

87. Telegram in five sections.