793.94 Commission/611: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 6—3:10 p.m.]
351. Consulate’s 342, November 29, noon.47 The Assembly convened in plenary meeting this morning. After a summary statement by Hymans the Chinese and Japanese delegates made extended addresses.
[Page 392]- 1.
-
Yen opened the
discussion by citing portions of the Lytton report which he
declared established Japan beyond any doubt as the aggressor. In
answer to previous assertions of Japan that the recognition of
Manchukuo rendered the conclusions of the Commission out of date he
cited a quotation by Lytton to the effect that the Japanese Foreign
Minister had informed the Commission of the impending act of
recognition and that the report was written with full account being
taken of this situation. He criticised the report for failing to
define provisional measures for the immediate restoration of the
Three Eastern Provinces to China but stated that this was a point
which the Chinese Government understood would be left to the
Assembly. He then presented to the Assembly four specific requests.
- (a)
- That on the basis of the Lytton inquiry it declare that Japan had violated the Covenant, the Kellogg Pact and the Nine-Power Treaty.
- (b)
- That it call upon Japan to execute forthwith the Council resolutions of September 30 and December 10, 1931, with a view to the withdrawal of Japanese troops and the dissolution of the Manchukuo Government.
- (c)
- That recalling its resolution of March 11th it declares that it will not recognize the Manchukuo Government and
- (d)
- That it draw up within the shortest possible time and before a definite date a report for a final settlement as prescribed in paragraph 4, article XV of the Covenant. He explained that the Chinese Government did not intend by this last request to preclude the possibility of conciliation being brought about by the Assembly on the basis of the instructions mentioned in (a) above but that it was prepared to discuss the solution suggested in the report in the event that Japan should prove willing to accept conciliation on the same basis.
- 2.
- Matsuoka reserving the right to reply to Yen then made a detailed defense of the Japanese position and repeated therein many of the arguments already familiar to the Department, especially with regard to the chaotic conditions of China and the development of communism, the Japanese measures of self-defense in Manchuria, the inability of the League to afford adequate protection to Japanese interests in Manchuria, the Japanese offer of direct negotiations, the effect of the Chinese boycott and the intervention of foreign powers in China in 1927. With regard to the last point he quoted extensively from the letter of Chamberlain 48 to the Council under date of February 8, 1927.49 He also discussed at some length the developments of anti-foreign sentiment in China.
With regard to Manchukuo he mentioned that the Lytton report nowhere impeaches Japan for abetting an independence movement and [Page 393] reiterated previous denials of Japanese participation therein. As to recognition it afforded the solution for peace and prosperity in Manchuria and for the protection of Japanese interests therein. In this connection he quoted certain passages of the Lytton report regarding the future of Manchuria particularly that paragraph where it is held that the restoration of the status quo ante is no solution.
He made no comment on the Lytton report except to deplore the impression that Japan opposes and China supports the report. He held that principal Japanese disagreement relates to optimism therein expressed for rehabilitation of China.
Settlement should be governed by following principles: