Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1931, The Far East, Volume III

793.94/2202: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, October 18, 1931—5 p.m.
[Received 8:50 p.m.]

217. I quote below the text of a note addressed to the President of the Council by the Japanese representative. This note was discussed in the private meeting of the Council held at 11 o’clock this morning (Chinese and Japanese representatives being absent).

1. Up to the present the Japanese Government has cooperated sincerely in the work of the League and has endeavored to increase its prestige by every possible means. It considers that the League’s action should in every case be strictly in accordance with the provisions of Covenant, and that this action should be both impartial and correct. If there is any departure from these principles for reasons of expediency the Japanese Government is of opinion that the authority of League is likely to suffer.

2. When the League Council discussed the question of inviting the Government of the United States of America to send an observer to sit on the Council, the Japanese representative expressed at length his doubts as to the interpretation of the Covenant—that is to say whether the presence in the Council of an observer of a non-member state was or was not compatible with the provisions of the League Covenant, and whether the question of the invitation could be or could not be regarded under the Covenant as a question of procedure. Although the Japanese representative asked the Council to examine these points the latter did not go fully into the questions raised by him and likewise rejected his request that they should be referred to a committee of legal experts for examination. The President of the Council left all these legal questions in abeyance and put the question of the invitation to the note [vote?], regardless of the opposition of the Japanese Government’s representative; he also decided that this was a question of procedure and stated that the proposal had been adopted by a majority.

3. The opinion was expressed that as the United States Government was a party to the Paris Pact it should have the opportunity of expressing its opinion before the League Council solely in regard to the application of that treaty. The Japanese Government is not only firmly convinced that the present situation is not such that there is any danger of war between Japan and China but also considers that, as the Paris Pact is a treaty between a large number of states including non-member states, the granting of an opportunity to sit on the Council with the right to express an opinion to the United States representative alone, raises a delicate question. This also shows that the invitation to the United States is not simply a question of procedure.

4. The Japanese Government cannot help feeling the profoundest misgiving as to the correctness of the precipitate adoption of a majority decision and the leaving in abeyance of the preliminary question whether a proposal requires unanimity or whether it can be decided by a majority. It is anxious to know when the legal questions outstanding are to be discussed and how the note [vote?] of October 15th will affect the result of those discussions.

Before deciding upon the attitude which it will adopt in regard to the questions now raised as a whole the Japanese Government will be happy to have the opinion of the President of the Council on the above-mentioned points.”

After a short discussion it was agreed that Briand as President of the Council should draft a reply. Briand stated that his reply would probably be along the following lines:

There was nothing in the Covenant to prohibit the Council from calling at any time representatives of governments to the Council table to consult or exchange information. Referring to the fact that the Japanese representative had previously called attention in this connection to article 4 of the Covenant, he would make it clear that inviting the representative of the United States to sit at the Council table did not mean that he was incorporated in the Council body nor had the power to vote. The action taken therefore in inviting the United States was in nowise analogous to action under article 4 of the Covenant. The Council consequently considered that the question of inviting the United States to the Council table for consultation and exchange of information was one of “procedure”. This was particularly true since the matter to be discussed with the representative of the United States was a question which did not concern the members of the League as such, and was not embraced in the provisions of the Covenant.

In regard to the question of the appointment of a committee of jurists to study the legal question cited by the Japanese, Briand stated that in reply to a direct question which he had previously put to the Japanese representative asking whether the Japanese Government would accept as final the conclusions of such a committee the Japanese representative had replied in the negative. Briand stated that in view of this attitude it would mean simply a loss of time to appoint such a committee.

Respecting the atmosphere of such a part of the discussion relating to this subject, it is natural as you will well understand that certain distress should be felt by some members of the Council, particularly those representing the small states, over any question of such a character being raised in the League. The spirit is, however, that technicalities must be laid aside at this juncture to accomplish a common objective, the maintenance of peace.

Gilbert