793.94/4634: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 8—7:46 p.m.]
108. 1. The resumption today of consideration by the General Assembly committee of the Sino-Japanese question was opened with a statement by Simon followed by a pertinent discussion, which have been reported by Wilson.
2. The subsequent general discussion was terminated by statements of Yen and Sato, the substance of which follows:
(a) Expressing gratification at the trend of the general discussion, Yen drew the conclusion from the debate that all speakers had supported the proposition that the “League must stand by its Covenant in all events” and quoted Simon in this regard.
With respect to procedure, he noted that article 15 provided in the first instance for mediation, but held that the Council had employed this for 5 months without success; if the Assembly attempted mediation again and also failed, China expects the Assembly to exhaust other possibilities under the Covenant.
Yen then noted that it had been proposed that after eventual adoption of a declaration which would be similar to that of the American [Page 536] note of January 7 nothing more should be done at present on the grounds that further action would be prejudicing the case. To this procedure Yen made strong objection declaring that China did not ask or expect the Assembly to take action tantamount to prejudice the case. What China asked the Assembly was to recognize “that the Covenant has been broken” on the ground of extensive military occupation of Chinese territory in violation of article 10 and that “contrary to the provisions of article 12 Japan has publicly and formally stated that she would not submit the dispute to arbitration”. Yen declared that for these facts no special verification by a commission was necessary especially as Japan admitted them and plead provocation. He considered that the attitude of the League should in effect be that regardless of provocation and excuse Japan has undertaken the settlement of the dispute in a wrong way and has broken her contract with other countries for peaceful methods of settlement to which she had agreed. The League should tell Japan to recall her troops and then the League will help to settle the dispute by methods to which all are committed. Yen asserted that a declaration that the Covenant had been violated would in no way prejudge the merits of the case.
With regard to Manchuria Yen pointed out that the resolution which created the Manchurian Commission made a distinction between the immediate matter of “stopping hostilities and liquidating the military occupation of Manchuria and on the other hand the task of adjusting the dispute itself”. He recalled that the resolution expressly stipulated that the appointment and work of the Commission should not prejudice in any way the promise given by Japan on September 30 as regards the withdrawal of Japanese troops. Recalling that Japan had approved of and supported the establishment of a “puppet state” in Manchuria, Yen declared that the Manchurian Commission was intended to contribute to a final solution and was not designated “to perpetuate the foreign occupation of Chinese territory”. He asked in the name of his Government that the decision of the Council regarding the withdrawal of Japanese troops “be put into execution by and through the supreme authority of the Assembly”. In concluding he appealed to the Assembly to take the necessary action.
(b) Sato then spoke and referred the committee to Matsudaira’s opening speech in the Assembly and the declarations made by Japanese representatives on the Council for a full presentation of Japan’s case. He reiterated that Japan had no designs on the “political independence or administrative integrity of China” and asserted that the Japanese had only taken military measures because conditions in China left them no possibility of acting otherwise. He recalled that other countries had taken similar action in the past and asserted that there is an [no?] analogy between the situation in China and that existing in Europe or on the American Continent. He emphasized that Japan had no intention of using military pressure to obtain privileges and pointed out that Japan had gladly accepted the resolution of March 4th providing for negotiations to ameliorate the situation in Shanghai. Recalling that Japan has always accorded wholehearted cooperation to the League, he stated that “we accepted the Covenant in its entirety, and we wish to see it applied without derogation [Page 537] or without exception but with due respect to facts as they are, as this was intended by those who drew up the Covenant and as it is embodied in the texts themselves”. In conclusion he expressed his appreciation of the efforts of the League and of those of the United States.
3. Beneš then proposed the appointment of a drafting committee to be composed of the members of the Bureau submitting motions, for the purpose of examining all motions and presenting final proposals as to the conclusions to be drawn from the general discussion. After a brief debate this proposal was adopted and it was announced that the drafting committee would meet tomorrow at 4 p.m.
4. Details of today’s general discussion will follow in subsequent telegram.70
- Not printed.↩