893.01 Manchuria/993
Memorandum by the Minister in China (Johnson)96
| Conversation with: | Lin Yun-koy, Marshal Ch’en Chi-t’ang, Commanding the First Group Army Corps; Liu Chi-wen, Mayor of the City of Canton; T’ang Shao-yi, Member of the Southwest Political Council. |
| Present: | Consul General Douglas Jenkins and Mr. Spiker. |
Subject: Policy of the United States in Regard to Manchuria.
Marshal Ch’en Chi-t’ang, after expressing appreciation of the action taken by the United States in connection with the occupation of Manchuria by Japan, asked whether there was any intention on the part of the United States to change this policy. I told Marshal Ch’en that I knew of no reason why the United States should change this policy, particularly as it was a policy logically based upon a treaty situation. I outlined the development of this treaty situation from the Versailles Conference and the Versailles Peace Treaty upon which was based the covenants of the League, through the Washington Conference with its settlement of questions regarding navies, Pacific questions, and the treaties, notably, the Nine Power Treaty regarding principles and clauses in reference to China which were the outcome of the Washington Conference. I pointed out that this [Page 471] treaty was based upon the conviction that it should be possible for nations to settle their differences by amicable means and through conferences rather than by a resort to force and to arms. I stated that in the case of my own country this treaty development had been taken very seriously; that we had based our policy, internal and foreign, upon the principles and ideals embodied in these treaties. I pointed out that as a logical conclusion of this treaty development there had followed the Kellogg Pact under which the United States, party thereto, had solemnly declared that they would not resort to war in the settlement of their disputes. Thus based, I stated that it seemed to me that the policy adopted by the United States in the Manchurian situation had been a logical policy and that so far as the United States were concerned there would be no change in this policy as long as those reasons remained good.
At this point Mr. T’ang Shao-yi interjected a remark to the effect that treaties are changed by circumstances. Having in mind the bearing of this statement by Mr. T’ang upon the local situation at Canton, where the authorities were lending themselves to an endeavor to deny American citizens their rights under treaties between China and the United States to carry on business, I said that it seemed to me that treaties were altered only in one way, namely, by negotiation and mutual consent, that the other way led in the direction of force, and that of course we must all choose which road we would follow. If nations entered into contractual and treaty relations sincerely and in good faith, then it must be expected that they would abide by such contractual relations until by a process equally amicable they could get together for the purpose of a conference with a view to determining what changes should be made in such treaty relations in order to adapt them more closely to new circumstances or events. Treaties after all marked the steps of progress in peaceful relations between states; any other method of interpretation or change in the terms of treaties invited force and that in the application of force the strong party was likely to determine the course of events. I stated that this was the fundamental question underlying the situation at the present time here in the East and that I thought China could do much to aid the point of view which was expressed in our policy.
Mr. T’ang stated that in Canton there was much interest in the development of industry; they wanted to make themselves independent of foreign markets, particularly in those lines where it was necessary often to send to foreign countries for materials to replace broken equipment ordered from abroad; they wanted a factory capable of making machinery, and sometime ago the authorities had [Page 472] asked him to visit the United States; circumstances had prevented his going but there was still some chance that he might go.
As an example of what he had in mind he referred to machinery ordered from Germany which, when broken down, had to await the arrival of new parts from Germany before it could be used again. This was the situation which they wished to remedy. What did I think of the possibility of getting some firm in the United States interested in assisting them in this matter? I told Mr. T’ang that I thought it unlikely that big firms in the United States would be interested at the present time in extending their operations abroad, particularly in the financing of undertakings. I pointed out that in the case of Russia it was quite true that American experts were being employed to put up factories and industrial plants but that in this case the work was being done by Soviet Russia and paid for in cash, with little risk to the American engineer or manufacturer of the products used, but that in China I assumed the project would involve the American firm in financing it ab initio and receiving its compensation out of earnings.
I said that I was interested in this phase of the developments in Canton; that important American interests were anxious to enter into the manufacture of products, notably oil, and were having some difficulty but that I was glad to learn upon my arrival that the difficulties which had been experienced were well on their way toward being ironed out. I stated that when I told my government that I was going to Canton I discovered that it was very much interested in the fate of these American companies and that I was glad to say that I was now apparently in a position to report that they were on the road to some kind of a settlement which would permit them to do business along with Chinese firms.
Marshal Ch’en inquired as to my opinion regarding the result of the seizure of Manchuria by the Japanese. I said that the results of this situation were of interest to everyone and all countries were considering the matter in the light of treaties and the interests involved and that at the present time no one knew what the result was going to be.
Before leaving inquiry was made about the policy of the Canton authorities in connection with the wolframite market. He stated that it was the policy of the authorities to control the sale of this product, the production of which was now in their hands; that their only difficulty was the question of prices, and that any firm might buy through provincially controlled sales agencies.
- Copy transmitted to the Department by the Minister in China in his despatch of December 13, 1933, from Nanking; received January 29, 1934.↩