793.94 Commission/563: Telegram
The Consul General at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10 a.m.]
339. In meeting yesterday afternoon Council concerned itself in Sino-Japanese question chiefly with two points of procedure (1) status of Lytton Commission vis-à-vis Council proceedings, (2) reference of dispute to the Assembly.
1. Matsuoka communicated a memorandum embodying in four specific contentions his reservations made at previous meetings (Consulate’s telegram 336, November 25, 10 a.m., paragraph 2).
- (a)
- The work of the Commission terminated when report was presented to the Council.
- (b)
- Japan does not object to Commission supplying at the Council’s request explanations regarding report or adding to or subtracting from it provided that such explanations should apply with regard to “passages in the report which are not clear and distinct” and that any addition and subtraction should follow from a “reexamination or reconstruction of the report itself or of materials which the Commission obtained on the spot in the course of its investigation.”
- (c)
- Japan cannot admit the competency of the Commission to comment on the observations presented by the Japanese Government to the Council or on the statements made by the Japanese representative at the Council’s current meetings.
- (d)
- If the Commission were to be asked to consider whether the observations and statements they have heard led them to desire to make any change in the report the Japanese representative might be compelled to cross-examine the members of the Commission; it was consequently with a view to obviating delay that Japan objected to this procedure.
The President called upon Lytton to state “whether the Commission itself desires to add anything to the report.” Lytton replied in the negative. Note: current opinion here is that these developments are not conclusive respecting the Commission’s ultimate authority.
2. The President reviewed the debate which has thus far taken place. Mentioning the Council’s intrinsic rights to deal freely with the report he felt, however, that “practical considerations” particularly the lack of any note of agreement in the speeches of the Japanese and Chinese representatives showed the expediency of referring the dispute to the Assembly as soon as possible.
The Japanese representative declared that he would have to request instructions from his Government regarding the President’s proposal. He then stated:
“I am convinced that if the matter is dealt with by the Assembly under article XV, the first obligation of the Assembly will be to exhaust [Page 371] every means in order to arrive at a solution by conciliation. If I am right in believing that conciliation will be sought I see no difference in considering the matter under article XI or under paragraph 3 of article No. XV.”
He emphasized that no settlement could be considered satisfactory unless subscribed to by both parties and that Japan believed that a permanent peace “based on realities” could only be achieved by pursuing the policy which had led her to recognize Manchukuo. He regretted that the Council last year had failed to accept the Japanese Government’s proposal of direct negotiations with China on the former’s five fundamental principles, a solution which he saw confirmed “in spirit” by the Commission’s report.
Endorsing the President’s proposal, the Chinese representative explained that during the Council’s current meetings he had purposely limited his views on the report to the third principle in chapter 9 in the hope that inasmuch as Japan was a signatory to the instruments mentioned therein this principle might serve as a basis of conciliation. The attitude of Japan having defeated this hope he felt compelled to await the convoking of the Assembly before fully presenting China’s case.