Office of the Historian

793.94 Commission/544: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, November 22, 1932—9 a.m.
[Received November 22—7:30 a.m.]

330. In Council meeting late yesterday Koo, the Chinese representative, was the only speaker.

[Page 359]
1.
He first presented a preliminary “answer” to the Japanese “observations” (Consulate’s 328, November 21, 3 p.m.), taking the position that the Lytton report itself constituted an answer and expanding this by declaring chiefly that the Japanese were inconsistent in their complaint respecting conditions in China as Japan was in a definite degree responsible therefor and that if Japan’s definition of the Kellogg Pact were to be accepted the Pact had better be abandoned.
2.
He then cited numerous instances of the hindering surveillance of the Chinese assessor in the pursuance of his duties by the Japanese authorities in Manchuria in contrast to the facilities extended in China to the Japanese assessor.
3.
Lastly he presented China’s “observations” on the Lytton report which were largely based on citations from the report supplemented by additional data, interpretation and deductions of which the chief points were as follows:
(a)
Japan’s historical and recently more explicit policy has been to embarrass China in her efforts at unification and reconstruction with the aim of controlling Manchuria and China itself.
(b)
Admitting the relationship of the Chinese Government to the boycott it was a justifiable pacific and self-denying means of defence.
(c)
There is at bottom no anti-foreign sentiment in China except against Japan as a natural consequent of Japanese policy.
(d)
Japan’s invasion of Manchuria was not an act of self-defense nor legitimately based on unsettled claims, the true nature of which the report discloses.
(e)
Despite her undertakings to the League Japan has continued to “aggravate the situation”.
(f)
Japan’s claim that the separation of Manchuria from China was voluntary is entirely spurious.

Koo then commented on the conclusions in the report along the general lines outlined in the Consulate’s 379, political, dated October 20, 1932.

Text of the Chinese statement transmitted by mail.26

Gilbert
  1. League of Nations, Official Journal, December 1932, pp. 1877–1890.↩