793.94/1849: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 23—12:10 p.m.]
124. Consulate’s number 120, September 22, 4 p.m. The proceedings in the Council this morning with the exception of Lord Cecil’s statement at the close, referred to in the Consulate’s telegram under reference, were entirely confined to a series of statements on the part of the Chinese and the Japanese delegates on the Council. The Chinese delegate spoke first. The substance of these is as follows:
China. Sze read two telegrams which he had just received from Nanking. These telegrams outlined factual developments in the conflict area, giving towns occupied, etc. He then stated that the total area which had been occupied by the Japanese troops was as extensive as that of Great Britain and Ireland. He said that these messages gave a very gloomy picture but he was afraid that even so it was incomplete, as the Japanese had cut communication between that area and Nanking, and that he believed the situation to be more grave than at the time he despatched his note to the Secretary General (Consulate’s 118, September 21, 5 p.m.).
His position was that it had become a question whether application of other articles than article 11 of Paris Covenant might not be required, although this might be prevented by prompt and effective action on the part of Japan. He then brought forward again the steps which he had requested the Council to take in his note to the Secretary General: (1) To prevent the further development of a situation endangering the peace of nations, (2) to reestablish the status quo ante, (3) to determine the reparations due to China.
Japan reported. Yoshizawa39 expressed his intention of replying to the Chinese delegate’s statement as soon as he had received instructions [Page 32] from his Government. In the meantime he wished to offer a few observations in an attempt to clear up the position and to determine the scope of the problem. He stated that in order to understand the situation, it was necessary to consider the nature of region where the incident occurred, and proceeded to lay stress upon the enormous Japanese interests there and rights guaranteed by treaties. He called attention to the great disproportion between the small garrison of soldiers maintained there by Japan and the very large Chinese army in that region. He declined to accept the Chinese affirmation that the incident took place without provocation on the part of Chinese troops and added that, according to official information in his possession, the incident was caused by the destruction by Chinese troops of part of the railway near Mukden, which necessitated the taking up of arms by the small Japanese garrison there. From this it became necessary to occupy important points in certain towns in order to prevent further incidents and to protect the railway and the life and property of Japanese nationals resident in the district. He then stated that this incident was not an isolated event but was rather an explosion due to a tension which had been created by a number of earlier occurrences such as the murder of Captain Nakamura by Chinese soldiers.
Referring to the Chinese demand for reparations, he considered it unjust to make any such claim until the Council had finished discussing the merits of the case. He contended that the settlement of the question of the reestablishment of the status quo ante could not be properly settled except on the spot and by taking into consideration the various factors in each locality.
He assured the Council that the incident was a local one and that immediately after its occurrence the Japanese Government had sent a formal order to the commander of the Japanese forces in Mukden to take the necessary steps to prevent an extension of the troubles. He added that his Government was far from the idea of making war on the Chinese Republic.
He asserted that, according to latest reports he had received, a proposal had been made by the Chinese that a solution should be sought by direct negotiations between the two Governments. He implied that this proposal was welcomed by his Government and added that in his judgment premature intervention would only have the result of needlessly exciting Japanese public opinion and thus impede the pacific settlement of the situation. He expressed the conviction that a pacific settlement could best be achieved by direct negotiations between the two Governments. Finally, in view of the fact that he had not yet received instructions, he requested the Council to postpone the matter until its next meeting.
China. Sze replied by noting that Yoshizawa’s views were personal inasmuch as he had admitted that he had not yet received instructions [Page 33] from his Government. With respect to the accuracy of his own statements regarding the cause of the incidents as questioned by the representative of Japan, he declared that China was quite willing to submit to an inquiry to be carried out by a commission appointed by the League and to leave the entire matter in the hands of an impartial commission. In respect of the case of alleged murder of Nakamura and other cases as being brought forward by Japan as the causes leading to the present incident, he declared they were quit irrelevant, as there are diplomatic and juridical means provided for the settlement of such questions. As to the contention of the Japanese that their recent measures were defensive, he stated that that was not an excuse which could be accepted by the Council, as on previous occasions the Council had clearly specified that no nation could use defensive measures as excuses in such case and that this view had been indorsed by the representative of Japan who was on the Council at the time. In this he referred to the minutes of the 36th extraordinary session of the Council in October, 1925, pages 1699–1709.40
With reference to the statement by the Japanese delegate that the Chinese had proposed direct negotiations, he denied this by implication declaring that China would not enter into diplomatic negotiations when a large portion of her territory was under military occupation by another country and further, when that very country had already resorted to means other than diplomatic measures. With reference to the Japanese delegate’s question whether this matter was within the competence of the Council, he declared that he did not think that there was the least doubt on that score, inasmuch as cases of a far less serious nature had previously been taken up, examined and adjusted by the Council.
Japan. Yoshizawa, referring to Sze’s contention that he was not acting under instructions from his Government and the information which he furnished was his own, clarified this point by saying that he meant only that he had not received instructions from Tokyo as to the policy he was to follow but that the information he had submitted came from his Government. With reference to Sze’s statement that communications had been cut off from Manchuria, [Yoshizawa?] had asserted that the first news regarding the incidents in question had come from Peiping and that he inferred that the telegram from Peiping was based upon information transmitted from Manchuria. Later telegrams appearing day after day in the press he believed to have been supplied by Chinese reporters Manchuria. Thus, although he did not assert that communications in Manchuria were intact, he thought it incorrect to say that information from Manchuria was [Page 34] meager. He also, with reference to Sze’s statement that the Japanese position was that the consideration of the question did not come within the competence of the Council, stated that what he had meant was that the incident was one which might be settled by means of direct negotiations between the two Governments. He added that he had reason to believe that the Chinese Government was also inclined to settle the question in that manner, inasmuch as he had received official information from his Government that a high official of the National Government at Nanking had spoken to the Japanese Minister to that effect. He added that according to the latest telegrams received, his Government was ready to accept this proposal though he had not yet been informed whether the answer had yet been communicated to the Government of China in that sense. He declared to the Council, however, that his Government was ready to accept this suggestion.
China. Sze, referring to statements which the Japanese representative had said were made by a Chinese official looking to direct negotiations, would point out that at the present moment no direct negotiations were in progress. He implied that if such statements were made on the part of a Chinese official, they were unfounded. He repeated that speaking for his Government the case was left to the Council.
Japan. The Japanese delegate contented himself by saying that the Chinese official to whom he referred as making suggestions to the Japanese Minister looking to direct negotiations, was one holding one of the most important portfolios in the Chinese Government and that after mature consideration the Japanese Government is inclined to express its agreement with the suggestions made by this very responsible official.