Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, The Far East, Volume III

793.94/4387: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Wilson), at Geneva

Washington, February 26, 1932—7 p.m.

23. Your 37, February 24, 5 p.m.

1. Your statement is correct that the resolution in 1922, which is the only existing legislation authorizing an embargo of arms when conditions of domestic violence exist, applies to China and certain other countries but not to Japan.

2. I do not think that an invitation to sit with the Assembly would facilitate cooperation between America and the other nations, and such an invitation might divert interest here into collateral channels.

3. I see no advantage and much danger in a discussion now between this Government and the authorities of the League as to the possibility of a general embargo against Japan. Although the League is the only group of nations possessing organized machinery for investigating and declaring facts and proposing solutions, it has not yet rendered any decision or report upon even the comparatively simple situation existing in Shanghai today. Therefore it is in no position to make inquiries of us as to eventual sanctions. A court must render a decision before discussing punishment. Furthermore, economic boycott or embargo is not the only, or the inevitable, sanction, which could be applied to this case under the League Covenant. Under Article 15 of the Covenant, the Council or Assembly has clear power to recommend other sanctions in making its report on such a controversy. (See committee report of 1927) In my letter to Senator Borah I suggested one such possible line of action. There are manifestly others which also would not precipitate the risks of war involved in an embargo.

4. There is no truth whatever in any of the assertions of … made to Sweetser and repeated by you over the telephone.⁸ Each statement was a pure fabrication. I see no reason to believe that this country has reversed its former sentiment against the use of sanctions of force in international controversies. While much public feeling has undoubtedly been excited by the invasion of China at Shanghai, I have no reason to believe that a proposal to enforce an economic boycott against Japan today would command any substantial support in Congress. On the other hand, other lesser sanctions indicating disapproval and aimed at expressing adverse public opinion would meet with general favor in the country at large and might not require Congressional action. My letter to Borah has thus far produced a remarkably favorable and united response here with no adverse criticism.

5. I am most anxious not to interfere with the performance by the League of its own responsibility. On our part we have not hesitated to assume responsibility for our own action along the path which seems to us advisable. There must be no crossing of wires or misunderstanding between us. You may discuss orally these points with Drummond, it being understood that they are not for publication.

In the foregoing cable I have endeavored to convey with accuracy the present state of public opinion on this critical subject. But if there should be any attempt made at Geneva to charge this country with the responsibility for failure to act by the League, the resulting consequences here to the chance of any future cooperation would be absolutely disastrous. You should make this perfectly clear to Drummond.

Stimson

8. As reported by Mr. Wilson, the statements of the American referred to were that he had consulted Mr. Stimson before initiating the movement for an economic boycott; that he had learned at the Department of State that the Department was very much in favor of the boycott and hoped the League Assembly would adopt a boycott; and; further that at a Cabinet meeting all the members of the Cabinet were in favor of an economic boycott except the President who was wavering on the matter. In reply to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Stimson specifically stated that the matter had never been discussed in the Cabinet. (793.94/4458½)