793.94 Commission/777: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 4—8:25 p.m.]
93. The Committee of Nineteen had a long private session this morning as a result of which the following communiqué was issued:
“The Committee of Nineteen met today with Bourquin (Belgium) presiding.
It had received from its drafting committee a text of the first part of the report which it might ultimately have to recommend to the Assembly under paragraph 4 of article No. 15; a request from the Chinese Government with regard to the acceleration of the procedure and the fixing of the time limit under article 12; and certain new proposals for conciliation put forward by the Japanese delegation.
After careful consideration of these suggestions the Committee, while appreciating the spirit which had prompted them, regretfully came to the conclusion that they differed so fundamentally from its own proposals of December 16 [15?] even as already modified to meet the desires of the Japanese Government, that they did not afford a satisfactory basis for the procedure of conciliation under paragraph 3 of article No. 15 particularly having in view the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.
The Committee requested the Secretary General to inform the Japanese delegation of these views and to express the view that the only basis which seemed to it to offer a reasonable chance of a successful outcome was the acceptance by the Japanese Government of the December 16th [15th?] proposals, subject to the two changes already indicated, namely, omission of the invitation to nonmember states to participate in the Committee of Conciliation and acceptance of the right of the parties to make reservations to the statement of reasons to be put forward by the President on behalf of the Committee of Nineteen.
[Page 147]The Committee also instructed the Secretary General to explain to the Japanese delegation that the procedure for conciliation under paragraph 3 of article No. 15 would remain in force until the Assembly itself adopted a report under paragraph 4 of that article but that in view of the long duration of the negotiations and the great efforts it had made for agreement it felt bound to proceed meanwhile with the drafting of its report which it expected would be ready within a comparatively short time after which the Assembly could at once be convoked.
The Committee began an exchange of views on the report and recommendations.”
Inasmuch as the communiqué is so complete as to the results of the discussion I shall only report to the Department the salient points of the discussion as given me by Sweetser.
Part 1, discussion concerning the new Japanese proposals (see my 92, February 3, 6 p.m.).
Eden70 felt that the Committee had a twofold task: First, the immediate one of preparing the report, and second, the concurrent task of holding open the opportunity of conciliation until the Assembly met. The possibility of conciliation should not, however, hold up preparation of the report. Undoubtedly the Japanese proposals indicate a certain change; while hitherto they had insisted on the recognition of the Manchukuo as a basis of negotiation, they were now willing to leave this question open for later settlement. At first he had found this idea attractive but he now saw that it could not be adopted without abandoning the Lytton Report. This he was not at all prepared to do. Moreover the proposal if adopted would place China in the position of having trampled on conciliation which seemed to him entirely unfair. Eden felt that the Committee should state quite frankly that the proposal was not acceptable. The Committee might ask the President and the Secretary General to explain the situation to the Japanese and to state that the Committee had previously made a proposal which still held good.
Massigli stressed the importance of the procedure they proposed. Japan was obviously seeking good ground for a break. Japan wished to show that she had been very conciliatory and that it was the Committee which at the very last moment had broken off the negotiations. Massigli thought it only right therefore for the Committee to fix an absolute date for the ending of conciliation efforts.
These statements by the British and French representatives accurately reflect the opinions of the smaller powers expressed during the meeting.
Part 2, discussion regarding other related points.
The question was raised, although apparently not thoroughly discussed, [Page 148] regarding an invitation to the United States and to Russia to associate themselves with the report.
The question was also raised respecting the relationship between article 15 and article 16 of the Covenant. If China accepted the report and Japan rejected it and a state of war continued or developed would article 16 not enter automatically into operation? The Secretary General said this question was obviously fundamental. He himself did not think that article 15 led automatically to article 16. Each was distinct and separate in itself. He stated, however, that obviously the matter would have to be very carefully studied.
It was decided that the Secretary General should see Matsuoka this afternoon.
The sense of the meeting seemed to be that the Committee of Nineteen should meet regularly every morning next week, the idea being that an effort would be made to finish the report by the end of next week when the Assembly could be called to meet early the following week. This, of course, is purely conjectural. The Secretary General seemed to doubt whether such a timetable could be followed.
Unless instructed to the contrary I shall use my discretion in sending daily reports next week.71