Office of the Historian

793.94/4983: Telegram

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Secretary of State

Shanghai, April 7, 1932—8 p.m.
[Received April 7—11 a.m.]

My April 4, 7 p.m., paragraph 2; and April 7, 1 p.m., paragraph 1.

Negotiators reconvened at 3 p.m. and commenced discussion of annex 2 and article 3 relative to the withdrawal of Japanese forces. Chinese state Japanese formula is unsatisfactory as it introduces the element of security while old article 3 was more satisfactory as it specified only physical reasons for retaining troops outside Settlement. Chinese stand on original article 3 and consider that all that remains is the fixing of a timetable conformable with physical limitations. They feel that question of security is taken care of by the fact that there has never been any threat against the Settlement and as a special measure they are preparing a special constabulary to take over evacuated areas from Japanese.

2.
There appears to be a complete deadlock between the two sides. Lampson summarized situation as presenting three alternatives:
(a)
Accepting Japanese declaration as quoted in my telegram April 4, 7 p.m., but with the words “and they hope that conditions will have so improved within 6 months or sooner” inserted between the words “pursuits” and “the Japanese troops”.
(b)
Agreeing to disagree—”the Chinese Government in taking note of the declaration of the Japanese Government that: (insert here original Japanese declaration as quoted in my April 4, 7 p.m.) hereby place on record their understanding that the terms of the present agreement for rendering definite cessation of hostilities and regulating withdrawal of the Japanese forces in accordance with the resolution of the Assembly of the League of Nations of March 4th, will not be finally implemented until the Japanese troops have been withdrawn to the International Settlement and the extra-Settlement roads in the Hongkew district as before the incident January 28, 1932, in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the agreement.”
(c)
Have no agreement at all.
3.
Quo suggested a fourth, namely, that we recognize the deadlock and the two nations report to the League Committee under whose auspices and supervision negotiations were being carried out while representatives of the four friendly powers participating at the request of the League report independently to their several Governments. General Uyeda expressed the opinion that it was too soon to take this step and stated that he would refer alternatives 1 and 2 to his Government.
4.
Sir Miles then suggested that both sides refer alternatives 1, 2 and [Page 678] 2 (a) to their Governments for consideration. Text of 2 (a) as follows:

“The Chinese authorities in concluding this agreement for rendering definite cessation of hostilities and regulating withdrawal of the Japanese forces in accordance with the resolution of the Assembly the League of Nations of March 4th hereby place on record their understanding that the spirit of the said resolution and the terms of the present agreement will not be finally implemented until the Japanese troops have been withdrawn to the areas in the International Settlement and Hongkew district occupied by them before the incident January 28, 1932, in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of this agreement”.

This was accepted and conference adjourned until April 9, 3 p.m.

Johnson