793.94/5749

The Ambassador in France (Edge) to the Secretary of State

No. 3223

Sir: A recrudescence of rumors regarding a Franco-Japanese understanding whereby the two powers pledge each other mutual support ushered in the new year but met with a prompt denial from the Foreign Office. The Socialists apparently launched the suggestion for the purpose of “smoking out” the Paul-Boncour16 government on its Far Eastern policy. Thus they contended that the “backboneless” attitude shown by the Laval, Tardieu and Herriot governments towards the conflict in Manchuria had served to abet the designs of Japan. They referred to negotiations which they said had been progressing between the two governments and between French and Japanese financial and industrial interests and let it be understood that an agreement had been reached not of a formal nature but of the pre war entente variety.

As a consequence through the Populaire they called on the Paul-Boncour government to make its position plain—to state openly whether it intended to continue the Franco-Japanese agreement,17 [Page 13] whether it proposed to encourage French finance and industry to pursue further conversations with Japan’s representatives.

The Government replied immediately in a communiqué addressed to the press which stated, “There is no secret treaty binding France and Japan and no proposal along those lines is under consideration at the Foreign Office.”

Moreover, in releasing the communiqué a governmental spokesman—said to have been M. Pierre Cot, the Undersecretary of State—explained that though France’s relations with Japan were “very clear and cordial” and the Government was making an effort to assure a closer collaboration between the two countries there was no pact. Indeed statements to the contrary should be attributed to “international trouble makers.”

This exchange coming coincidentally with the advance of Japanese troops in Jehol provoked widespread comment in the press with the extreme Left urging the government to strengthen the hand of the League of Nations and the Right and Center taking the fatalistic viewpoint that Japan was in Manchuria to stay, that it needed Manchuria as an outlet for its industries and excess population and finally that it would be folly for the Western powers to fly in the face of Japanese determination.

The Temps, for instance, took great pains to point out in its leading editorial of December 31 that Japan was prepared to consolidate its dominion over Manchuria, a province with which it had close and vital political and economic ties.

“The boycott practised by the Chinese has ruined the prosperity of the Empire of the Rising Sun,” the Temps explained; “as a consequence Manchuria has become an indispensable field for Japanese expansion. That is what makes it impossible to solve the problem by recourse to the general formulae advanced by the League of Nations and renders recourse to direct negotiation between Nanking and Tokio imperative for the pacific solution of the problem outstanding between the two neighboring countries which have such enormous common interests and therefore should reach an understanding if they desire a durable peace in the Far East.”

This “durable peace” which is to result from “direct negotiations” should however be based on a formal recognition of the doctrine of the open door, the Temps in conclusion insisted.

Leon Blum, Socialist leader, demanded in Le Populaire a diplomatic break with Japan. The fate of the post war system identified with the League of Nations, of American collaboration with Europe, the Disarmament Conference, confidence, security were at stake, he said. It was far better to have a mutilated League of Nations with Japan out of it than a dishonoured League with Japan in it.

[Page 14]

The Radical Socialist viewpoint was set forth in the République which summoned the members of the League of Nations to take immediate and effective action to stop Japan’s further invasion of Chinese territory. This paper reminded the nations of Europe that a similar aggression might take place at any moment at their door step and that if the League failed in the present crisis it would fail later. Therefore the République recommended immediate economic and financial sanctions through the League of Nations. However the main body of the French press sympathized openly and avowedly with the Japanese.

As Pertinax explained in L’Echo de Paris, order could be brought about in Manchuria only when the Chinese military forces in Jehol were dispersed. Japan could not tolerate an affront to its prestige in the Far East by a military Tu-Chun supported by Canton revolutionaries. Therefore while the League continued to discuss abstract principles Japan would solve its problems realistically in its own fashion.

Pertinax and the other Nationalist writers did not deceive themselves as to the repercussion of the Japanese action on the Geneva deliberations. He admitted frankly that the reopening of the meetings in Geneva would be the signal for the rupture of Japan with the League.

Respectfully yours,

Walter E. Edge
  1. Joseph Paul-Boncour, Premier of France.
  2. Signed June 10, 1907, Foreign Relations, 1907, pt, 2, p. 754.