882.01 Foreign Control/112: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:45 p.m.]
72. The Liberian question based upon the report of the Council Committee on Liberia came before the Council at its meeting this morning.
Zaleski the rapporteur stated that he had nothing to add to the report.
Zumeta then made a long speech in which he reasserted in general, the position which the Consulate understands that he took in London. The points he made were as follows:
- 1.
- He took exception to certain elements in the report, in particular to points 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the resolution instructing the experts.
- 2.
- He had desired that a committee of jurists be appointed to determine the right of the League under the terms of the Covenant to take the proposed measures of intervention in a sovereign state, which had in them elements of “action”.
- 3.
- Although Liberia had consented, Grimes had indicated in London that the consent was not unconditional, and, from the viewpoint of the League, points of principle were still involved even with Liberia’s acceptance, the consent of the weak being a questionable source of authority.
- 4.
- It would be more advisable to follow the terms of the Slavery Convention which lays down the procedures to be followed in such cases.
- 5.
- The former were juridical considerations, but there remained perhaps more important factors. In particular he felt that such action as was contemplated in Liberia would shake the faith of the world respecting the independence and honor of nations and stated that his position in this respect had the support of the “moral elite” of the United States.
The position taken by Sottile in his speech (in which he announced that he was speaking under instructions) was unexpected. He expressed surprise at the extent to which Zumeta had gone in his statements and declared that the assurances which Liberia had received that the League action would not go beyond the terms of the Covenant and would not infringe Liberia’s sovereignty completely satisfied his Government. He fully acquiesced in the measures as now framed in which, with the assurances given, he perceived no elements of “intervention”. He took particular exception to Zumeta’s statement that the work of the experts would be to suppress forced labor inasmuch as forced labor had been suppressed in Liberia 7 months ago. In thanking the Council he stated that at that moment two and one-half millions of Liberians were expressing gratification to the League.
Zaleski assured the Liberian delegate that there was nothing further from the minds of the Council than any alienations of Liberian sovereignty.
Zumeta made formal reservations on points 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the resolution instructing the experts and announced that Venezuela would abstain from Voting.
The report was adopted with Venezuela’s abstention, Venezuela’s reservations and Zaleski’s reassurances being noted.
With respect to the position taken by Sottile the Consulate has reason to believe that it was due to advice given him by Sugimura and other members of the Secretariat.
With respect to Zumeta it is the general opinion here that his statements were chiefly with a view to Venezuelan and Latin American consumption. In this connection the Consulate has been reliably informed that the Guatemalan and Peruvian members of the Council had no knowledge of what Zumeta would say and that they expressed themselves after the Council meeting to the effect that they did not approve of the position which he had taken.