893.114 N 16 Manchuria/32: Telegram

The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

201. My 197, June 2, 4 p.m.

At plenary meeting of Advisory Committee this morning the draft circular prepared by the subcommittee regarding nonrecognition of “Manchukuo” was unanimously adopted.67 It was decided to send copies of the circular to all members of the League and to those nonmembers to whom had been sent the report of the Assembly of February 24, the idea being that these nonmember states should take into consideration the adoption of an attitude with regard to the circular similar to that of member states.
The question was raised respecting the necessity of response to the circular. Carr68 suggested that there was no necessity for the reply to express agreement. Drummond took an opposite view believing that the whole situation would be left up in the air if affirmative replies were not received expressing adherence to the line of action suggested in the circular. This latter view was adopted. I understand therefore that the circular will be transmitted to the Department by the League in a covering letter to which a response will be indicated.69
The following statement in regard to the opium importation situation was incorporated in the circular:

“With reference to the Geneva Opium Convention of 1925 chapter 5 the Committee recommends to members of the League and to interested states nonmembers that applications for the export to ‘Manchukuo’ territory of opium and other dangerous drugs should not be granted unless the applicant produces an import certificate in accordance with the convention of such a nature as to satisfy the government to which application is made that the purpose for which the importation is intended is not contrary to the convention. A copy of the export authorization should accompany the consignment but governments should refrain from forwarding a copy of the export authorization to ‘Manchukuo’ since such action might be interpreted as a de facto recognition of ‘Manchukuo’.”

Department’s 115, June 5, noon. I was not approached on the subject so could not, in view of the Department’s instructions, get into contact with the principal members of the Commission and thus [Page 357] try to cause the Department’s views to prevail. Opinion was not very positive on the question and it might well have been possible to influence.
  1. League of Nations, Official Journal, special supp. No. 113, p. 10.
  2. Edward H. Carr, Assistant Adviser on League of Nations Affairs, British Foreign Office.
  3. For letter dated June 12, 1933, see Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 120.