793.94/2534: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 4:44 p.m.]
285. (1) Your 126, November 5, 3 p.m. As soon as it was decoded yesterday afternoon, I conveyed the message therein to Drummond. [Page 388] He expressed his opinion most strongly that the contents of the American memorandum to the Japanese Foreign Office and the terms in which it was couched most satisfactorily fitted into the picture of the present negotiations as he saw them, so that the American démarche should prove to be of invaluable assistance.
(2) Drummond will strictly conform to your stipulations in regard to the confidential nature of the American action. For his own reasons he will, for the present, not inform all of the Council members but merely the members of the Committee of Five. To the others he will only make reference, as occasion arises, to reports of the American press in the premises and comment that these seem to be well founded and that he is himself giving them full credence.
(3) Drummond then discussed a matter associated directly with the above and which bears on your 122, October 30, 5 p.m. He made some observations he wished conveyed to you, as he feels you would understand fully the spirit in which they are being made. Naturally he is closely in touch by telephone with Paris. Drummond mentioned a situation in Paris which I likewise sensed in my contacts with delegations here during the last session of the Council. In France as well as in the French press there are pro-Japanese elements, and these are related in part to the sales by French munition manufacturers to Japan. This also is reflected somewhat in the French Foreign Office, with Briand far ahead of the latter in respect of the manner in which France and the League conduct the Sino-Japanese question. Briand’s policy is supported entirely by Massigli, while Leger, who supports Briand personally, is inclined toward Japan as a phase of French foreign policy. As I have previously reported, Berthelot is more or less frankly pro-Japanese. Therefore, a great deal depends upon support for Briand’s leadership. Drummond learned in a telephone talk with Massigli that communications through the French Ambassador at Washington to Paris were very unsatisfactory. Drummond was told by Massigli that Briand was not at all clear in regard to the American memorandum to the Japanese Foreign Office, cited above, and was quite confused by what Claudel had reported on the whole American position. Since a common understanding appears to me at this time to be desirable among the limited number directly concerned, I venture in these circumstances to suggest following a procedure (similar to that in my relations with Drummond) of conveying information to Briand through our Embassy in France. As a case in point, to make available to Briand the text of the American memorandum to the Japanese would, I feel, be of assistance now, not only because a clear knowledge of the American position might be useful to him but particularly because he seems to have had a garbled version. The clarification of previous communications with Paris [Page 389] might also be of assistance to him. It strikes me as important for Briand to be informed in person of these matters.
(4) As indicated above, Drummond is aware of American relations with Paris. He inquired whether contact was being kept also with London, and I said I had no information on this score. He requested that I ask you if it might not be useful. In this entire matter there is no question at all of Paris, London, and Geneva being the focal points respecting both League policy and national policies (see paragraph 8 of my 274, November 2, 11 p.m.). During the Council session here I noted that the French and British delegations consulted frequently prior to making decisions and that often the French waited for the British to lead or concur. As a recent case in point, with regard to the association of neutral observers with the Chinese (see my telegram 274), Drummond said he had been informed by Paris that in this particular they would conform to British policy. So a like classification of the American position in London might be considered. No other capitals, in my opinion, come into the picture at present.
(5) Drummond is not giving out anything in Geneva regarding the relations of the United States with the League. Indications of the American position expressed in the memorandum previously mentioned are carried by press reports from Tokyo and Washington. These, however, are couched in general terms only, with the exception of a Tokyo report which says the United States has not made representations concerning the time limit for evacuation by the Japanese. The American press representatives in Geneva are greatly excited, and it is hard to tell what may be telegraphed home by them to their papers. I think I may say in confidence, however, that any report appearing in the press as derived from “a high official of the League,” or using some such term, is not based upon the statement of any responsible League official. Judging from the situation here, Drummond and I both are inclined to think, and you will perhaps agree, that a statement of his being “satisfied” with United States relations with the League of Nations might be interpreted by the press to indicate there was something mysterious afoot, probably in the way of American commitments, which would make American relations difficult with the press. For my own general guidance, I would appreciate your comments as to this point. Drummond, of course, will be glad to act as vehicle for any statement which you might desire him at any time to make public.