793.94/2958: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Shaw) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 30—1:34 a.m.]
819. From Ambassador Dawes. Following is report from Sweetser:
“Two meetings were held today, the first of the Drafting Committee with Ito in the morning to discuss Japan’s suggestions regarding the draft resolution, and the second of the Committee of Twelve in the afternoon to consider this and other questions.
Ito presented a memorandum explaining that the purpose behind the Japanese suggestions was to simplify the resolution as much as possible and leave all details and commentary to the President’s speech. He thought this would turn several difficulties felt by both delegations and increase the chance of unanimity.
The first amendment, he suggested, was purely one of drafting, omitting the word ‘recalls’ in the first paragraph, to which the Committee agreed. In this same paragraph also he asked to have omitted the phrase ‘so that the withdrawal of the Japanese troops within the railway zone—a point to which the Council attaches the utmost importance—may be effected as speedily as possible.’ Part of this he felt to be an appreciation which had better go in the President’s speech; the rest he thought should not be given unless accompanied by the counterbalancing part of the September 30 resolution regarding safety. The Council members seemed to feel however that the resolution ought to start with special emphasis on evacuation, even, as one member stated, in view of Japan’s insistence on her intention in this regard and it is probable that Ito’s point would be met by adding another phrase: ‘On the resolution of September 30’.
In the second paragraph Ito proposed that it be stated that the situation had grown worse ‘in other parts of China’ as well as in [Page 593] Manchuria. He mentioned especially the boycott and the situation in Tientsin to justify this. The Committee felt however that these more general matters could only be handled by the commission; it thought it could meet Ito’s point by leaving out the phrase ‘in Manchuria’.
In this same paragraph Ito urged for constitutional reasons the omission of the phrase as to giving commanders of the respective forces the strictest orders as in the case of Japan, troops serving abroad are under the control of the Emperor. This point could be met without loss to the resolution but more doubt was felt regarding Ito’s suggestion that the phrase that the two parties would ‘undertake’ certain obligations be replaced with the phrase that it was their ‘intention’ to do certain things.
As regards the commission, Ito strongly urged limiting the number of members to three though he frankly stated that he could give no convincing reason therefor. In reply to comments as to the immense task before the commission, the wide area to be covered, and the many subjects, diplomatic, military, economic, etc., Ito urged that most all these questions were technical and the commission could have as many experts as it desired. No decision was taken but the tendency is towards a commission of five.
The most serious difficulty faced both in the Drafting Committee and in the Committee of Twelve was in connection with his suggestion that the President’s declaration expressly admit the right of the Japanese forces to take such measures as are indispensable to protect the life and property of Japanese subjects against bandits and other lawless elements in Manchuria. Ito explained that the situation there was very abnormal; that the Japanese position must be clear of any ambiguity; and that this particular text had been expressly sent him from Tokyo. Various members of the Drafting Committee objected to provisions, however. Cecil pointed out that it is very difficult to distinguish between police actions and acts of war on another country’s territories. Colban feared the provision might create some permanent right of intervention. Madariaga took much the same view. Cecil in reporting to the Twelve in the afternoon even more emphatically stated that this suggestion seemed to open the door to all sorts of dangers, and permitted raids which might become real military movements resulting in the capture of cities. He wondered if it might not be possible to induce the Japanese to agree that in case it were necessary to take action against bandits in the future they would invite a neutral observer to accompany them and notify the League of the facts. Briand shared these preoccupations; he did not know how clearly to distinguish police measures from military action; he did not see how the Chinese could agree to such a declaration affecting a large part of their territory; he seriously doubted if measures such as had been taken would be [in accord?] with article 2 of the Kellogg Pact. Fotitch was afraid any such declaration might create a new doctrine of international law; Lester20 feared to have the Council give any appearance of moral sanction to military actions taken by one country [Page 594] in another. It was agreed that Briand would try to find a text which would give the Japanese the possibility of reasonable police action against bandits up to the time of the completion of the evacuation but without raising the larger questions.
Briand announced the receipt of a telegram that the Japanese had begun withdrawal from Tsitsihar to Taonan. He thought there was a certain amelioration of the military situation. If this turned out to be the case the Council must profit by it and act quickly. It was accordingly arranged to try to have three meetings tomorrow, first with Sze in the morning, then with Yoshizawa, and finally with the Twelve.
A special request was made by Cecil to give the Chinese satisfaction regarding some kind of permanent organization of military observers who should be able to collate reports and act quickly if necessary. He said the Chinese were very anxious to know what sort of assurance could be given them in this respect as they feared that once the Council were gone the Japanese would become even more active. Cecil said that his Government would be willing to instruct its Minister in Nanking to discuss some permanent liaison amongst the military observers and asked if the other members of the Council would do likewise. The French and Spanish representatives immediately replied in the affirmative; the German said he had already asked his Government but had not yet had a reply.”
- [Dawes]
- Shaw
- Irish representative at League of Nations Council meeting.↩