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

893.102S/1263a

The Department of State to the Navy Department⁴⁰

undated

Memorandum

Subsequent to the action taken by the Japanese military authorities at Shanghai beginning January 28, 1932, the American Minister to China discovered the existence of an agreement entitled “International Defense Scheme” for the defense of the International Settlement of Shanghai and its vicinity, which had been signed on December 18, 1931, by the commanders of the American, British, Japanese and French military detachments landed at Shanghai and by the Chairman of the Shanghai Municipal Council, the Commander of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps, and the Commissioner of the Shanghai Municipal Police. The Minister also learned that the signing of this agreement was unknown to the American Consul General at Shanghai and, although the agreement was signed subject to “confirmation by superior authority”, the Minister was never able to ascertain that such confirmation had been obtained.

In the light of past history, the reason and the warrant for the formulation of an agreement in reference to a plan of defense of this sort is to be found in the fact that it is necessary for the municipality and the powers whose nationals reside and have interests there to be prepared to maintain order and to safeguard the lives and property of their nationals in case of disturbances or threat of attack of Chinese origin, internal or external. At and before the time when the defense scheme under reference was agreed upon there had been no case in which one only of the foreign powers had become involved in hostilities with the Chinese in consequence of which the safety of the International Settlement was jeopardized. Six weeks later, at the end of January, 1932, there developed a situation in which that contingency had to be met. In considering the purposes of such an agreement and in passing judgment upon the specific provisions which appear or which should appear in such an agreement, it should be thoroughly understood that the primary concern of the powers is the maintenance of order in the Settlement and the defense of foreign lives and property against a Chinese attack. Under no circumstances should the powers lend themselves, through the fact or by the provisions of such an agreement, to the facilitating of military efforts by one of their number for the carrying out of a political policy or the prosecution of objectives peculiar to itself.

A study of the agreement referred to above reveals the fact that it authorizes the British and the Japanese contingents, in case it should become necessary to invoke the agreement, to carry on operations in extra-Settlement areas. While the agreement does not impose upon the American military contingent at Shanghai any obligation to take part in operations beyond the boundaries of the International Settlement, this Department, in view of the political factors involved, would desire to be consulted before a general defense plan providing for operations in extra-Settlement areas by any of the defense contingents was approved by any officer of the American Government in China. Moreover, the Japanese authorities have cited this agreement in justification of their troop movements on and subsequent to January 28. The Chinese authorities protested these movements. Although the Japanese definitely violated certain of the provisions of the agreement, there is a sufficient degree of justification in their plea that they were acting under the authority given in that agreement to make the situation somewhat embarrassing to this Department.

An international agreement of this kind has a most important bearing on the policy of the American Government in and toward China. It involves political factors as well as political objectives of various foreign governments, with regard to which the representatives of this Department are primarily concerned. The Department feels, therefore, that if such an agreement is to be signed by an American military officer in China, that officer should, except in case of great emergency, confer with the highest representative of the Department of State in the vicinity before he actually signs such an agreement. The American Minister to China has sent to Admiral Taylor, Commander-in-Chief of the Asiatic Fleet, a copy of his memorandum to the Department on the subject. It is believed, therefore, that Admiral Taylor is fully informed of Minister Johnson’s views of the need of cooperation in such matters between the representatives of the State and Navy Departments in China. It is suggested, however, that it would be desirable for the Navy Department to issue to its representatives in China appropriate instructions along this line.

There is another phase of the question which it is believed requires consideration, namely, whether representatives of the American Government in China shall continue to cooperate under the existing agreement, with all the implications that flow from such cooperation. This is particularly important as the relations between China and Japan are such that the question of invoking this agreement again may arise at any time. This Department is not inclined to believe that we should withdraw entirely from cooperation under the terms of this agreement. It does believe, however, that the representatives of the State and Navy Departments in China should be instructed to watch developments closely. It is felt also that in view of the apparent likelihood that the question of the possible necessity of dealing with a new situation of emergency and calling into operation this or some other defense plan may again arise in the near future, these representatives should immediately inform the representatives of the other powers and the Municipal Council that the American Government regards this agreement, insofar as its applicability in case of possible future contingencies is concerned, as tentative and that they are instructed, in case a situation of emergency appears imminent, and before the Municipal Council shall have declared a “state of emergency”, to invite discussion with regard to the applicability of this plan to the situation at that time apparent or envisaged. This procedure would operate, it is believed, toward obviating a repetition of the unfortunate complications that flowed from the declaring on January 28, 1932, by the Municipal Council of a “state of emergency” and the implementing thereupon of this defense plan. This procedure would, moreover, appear to be in conformity with the note contained on the title page of the defense plan, reading as follows:

“This agreement is valid only so long as the conditions existing at the time when it was arrived at remain unaltered.”

This Department, in proposing this move, is not unmindful of the fact that the question of defense involves problems which insofar as they are military problems can best be dealt with by the military authorities on the spot; and it is not our desire to hamper those authorities in the handling of those problems. What we desire is (1) to guard against abuse, for political purposes, of the presence of our armed forces and our willingness to participate in legitimate defense of foreign lives and property within the International Settlement; (2) to ensure that there will be adequate knowledge by this Department of plans devised and steps taken which involve action by agencies of this Government in a complicated international situation; and (3) to promote the fullest possible cooperation between the different agencies of this Government which have responsibilities in connection with phases which exist or phases which may arise in that situation.

With those objectives in mind, this Department does not, at this date, desire to suggest alterations in or amendments to the defense plan under reference; but it proposes that instructions be given as outlined above the effect of which would be to establish certain safeguards and to ensure an increased measure of cooperation, through exchange of views and information, on the part of the various agencies of this Government that are involved.

40. Handed by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, under instruction of the Under Secretary of State, to Rear Admiral Walton R. Sexton, Assistant Chief of Naval Operations, for the Chief of Naval Operations, on September 3, 1932.