793.94 Commission/547: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 24—12:02 a.m.]
334. Following is the substance of developments in the Sino-Japanese question in a Council meeting held today.
- 1.
- The Japanese representative answered certain of the points raised
in the Chinese “observations” (Consulate’s 330, November 22, 9 p.m.
[a.m.]) in effect as follows:
[Page 363]
- (a)
- The assertion that the Japanese advance military plans envisaged not only operations in the Mukden area but in all of Manchuria is destitute of foundation.
- (b)
- In occupying Shanghai Japan acted in self-defense and entirely within the provisions of the Pact of Paris.
- (c)
- Japan has no project for continental or world expansion. China’s historical citations indicative of such projects although in general accurate are for the most part exceptional statements of individual Japanese and in no way indicative of the policy of the Japanese Government.
- (d)
- The Chinese boycott is an “aggravation of the situation” contrary to Chinese undertakings to the League.
- (e)
- The Chinese representative’s statement that it might be a reasonable proceeding for the Chinese Government to legalize the boycott is a serious admission of Chinese belief in the legality of a boycott. The position of the United States in an instance of a boycott in China of American goods was to the effect that it was the duty of the Chinese Government to put a stop to the movement which was irregular, illegal and specifically in violation of treaty rights. To enforce its viewpoint the American Government ordered its Pacific Fleet to be in readiness to proceed to China. Substantiating citations were read from the 1905 volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States.
- (f)
- General anti-foreign sentiment in China is shown by the anti-foreign education in the schools. The Boxer movement of 1900 continues in spirit today. The Chinese allegation that incidents damaging to missionaries and other foreigners were rare and far between can be answered by the public record.
- (g)
- Japan has at no time violated the Covenant of the League, the Pact of Paris or other treaties.
- (h)
- Japan in line with her established policy of preserving peace in the Orient and in the maintenance of order is in no way responsible for the disorganization of China but on the contrary has done her utmost to assist China.
- (i)
- Chinese policy vis-à-vis Japan is indicated in the secret treaty of 1896 between China and Russia (referred to in MacMurray’s Treaty volume29) which was an aggressive alliance against Japan. Had Japan had knowledge of the existence of this treaty at the time of the Russo-Japanese War there would today have been no Manchurian problem for Japan would have retained Manchuria.
- (j)
- Chinese allegation of a disorganized Japan as explicit in Japan’s foreign policy may be left to the world’s judgment.
- (k)
- China’s call on the League for prompt action inasmuch as delay will entail further bloodshed is answered by the circumstance that the inhabitants of Manchuria are enjoying protection and happiness not known in China proper.
- 2.
- In a discussion between the Chinese and Japanese representatives respecting the authenticity of the “Tanaka Memorial”30 the Japanese [Page 364] representative demanded that Koo submit proofs of its authenticity.
- 3.
- Koo in his rebuttal chiefly reiterated previous statements and did not adduce anything new which seems to be of sufficient importance to report.
- 4.
- Lord Lytton took his seat at the Council table. The President proposed that, having heard the statements of the Chinese and Japanese representatives, the members of the Commission of Inquiry should inform the Council as soon as convenient “whether these observations and statements would cause the Commission to think that the views expressed in their report should be modified or added to in any way.” Matsuoka assented to this but with the understanding that any opinions expressed would represent the views of the Commission as a whole and not those of any particular member. He added, however, that according to his understanding “the task of the Commission was ended at the moment it submitted its report to the League” and it was therefore “beyond the competence and authority of the Commission to confer and give a new phase regarding the observations or exposes put forth by my Government or by myself.”
The President replied:
“With regard to the first point raised it was understood that the opinion would be that of the Commission as a whole. With regard to the second point my views are that the Commission is still in existence until it is formally dismissed by the Council, that any opinions the Council may wish to get from the Commission as a whole should be available to it.”
Matsuoka persisted in his contention that the work of the Commission was completed on the production of the report and that it had “no right to make any comments or give any opinion concerning what took place after the production of the report.” He asserted that if the Council differed he wished to take exception and reserve his attitude. The President reiterated his views and called attention to the fact that this was in accordance with League practice.
The Chinese delegate supported the President’s proposal.
After a further interchange between Matsuoka and the President along the same lines Lytton spoke as follows:
“I should like to thank you for the opportunity you have afforded us of stating whether the observations that have been made by the representatives of Japan and China would lead us in any way to modify the opinions contained in our report. Since it is obvious that any opinion I might express on that point must be the opinion of the Commission as a whole I cannot respond to your invitation until I have had an opportunity of meeting my colleagues. We will meet tomorrow and discuss the invitation you have extended to us. With regard to the point raised by the Japanese delegate the Commission has not met [Page 365] since the members of it returned to their respective countries nor expressed any opinions nor taken any action as a commission. It was not my understanding of your invitation that we should be asked to comment on the observations that have been made; all I understand your invitation to mean was that we should tell the members of the Council whether the observations made on our report are such as to lead us to explain, modify or alter our recommendations in any way. This is the only point that I shall put to my colleagues if I have rightly understood the matter and that is the only point to which I shall address myself when the opportunity arises.”
This proposal was approved by the Council, the Japanese reservation being maintained.