793.94 Commission/744: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:30 p.m.]
79. The Committee of Nineteen resumed its sessions in private today under the Chairmanship of Hymans.
Following is resume of the meeting furnished us by Sweetser13 in strictest confidence:
“Hymans recalled that the texts approved by the Committee in December had been subject to negotiation with the two parties and that he and the Secretary General had been instructed to make a great effort for conciliation in the interests of the parties, of the League and of the world. Japan had, however, presented amendments differing so fundamentally from the Committee’s draft that no agreement upon them was possible. China also had submitted amendments which had been transmitted to the Committee. Since then the Japanese delegation had prepared certain new suggestions which, however, it could not formally transmit to the League until they had the approval of the Cabinet and perhaps the Emperor. The Cabinet would meet today or tomorrow and the Committee might expect the decision by Wednesday.
Drummond stated that when the Japanese counterproposals had been first transmitted the delegation had been informed that they would not be acceptable to the Committee and could not even form a basis for discussion. Since then, entirely on their own initiative and responsibility, the Japanese delegation had submitted further suggestions which unfortunately had been reported as an agreement arrived at between Sugimura and himself. In view of these reports he wanted to state that the situation was not at all as described, as he had submitted no proposals whatsoever or accepted any agreement but had merely been consulted by the Japanese as he might be by any other state members of the League.
Drummond also recalled the instructions which had been given in the utmost confidence to the Secretariat to make ready a report under paragraph 4 should it be necessary to resort to that paragraph. Fortunately this information had remained confidential not even the Japanese, he thought, being aware of it. The reports, however, were now in an advanced stage and would be available when the Committees wished.
Lester14 was very grateful for the information regarding the negotiations as press reports had created a great deal of misunderstanding [Page 96] as to the position both of the Secretary General and of the Committee. He thought it would be desirable to disclose this misunderstanding through a public statement. He also drew attention to the fact that the Committee had stood adjourned since December 20th and it had now been asked to adjourn again in order to wait for a statement which should have been received some time ago. He greatly hoped that the new delay would not be unduly long.
Simon urged it might be well to reassure public opinion which he felt was anxious and reasonably anxious that the Committee fulfill the duty falling to it if conciliation should fail of proceeding under paragraph 4. Obviously the Committee had no choice but to take this action and should take it with as little delay as possible. He suggested adding to any statement issued that while the Nineteen thought it should agree to the delay which Japan proposed it would nevertheless if conciliation failed lose no time in acting under paragraph 4. This could be put not at all as a threat but simply as a reassurance to public opinion.
Massigli15 supported this suggestion. He thought the Committee must accept the request for postponement disturbing though it was. He wondered if there was even now any guarantee of a reply within the time fixed and feared the effect of further delay on public opinion. He thought it wise, therefore, to show preoccupation which the Committee felt. Drummond stated that the delay had been due to Matsuoka’s delay in returning to Geneva and Hymans said that the Japanese had given every assurance of a reply within the time set.
Simon then amplified his statement by expressing the hope that if conciliation did fail the Committee would act very quickly under paragraph 4 and not allow a long delay. The essential matter in his mind was the adoption of the Lytton Report both as to facts and as to recommendations. He would like to suggest that beyond the report mentioned by the Secretary General a very brief and simple alternative text might be made ready stating that the Committee accepted this report fully. World public opinion he thought wanted to know whether the League stood by the report or did not. For himself he most decidedly did. The best effect he thought would be created if a short concise statement could be adopted rather than a long abstruse document which would leave the public in doubt as to whether the report had been accepted or not. Drummond agreed with this viewpoint but thought that the statement could not be quite so simple as Simon thought.
Motta16 then complained regarding the publication of the Committee’s draft which was supposed to have been very confidential but which Drummond explained was probably due to the parties themselves. Motta felt that this publication had made conciliation more difficult and that recent events at Shanhaikwan had made it almost hopeless. He trusted the report would be ready immediately in case conciliation failed and that the ultimate discussions would take place in public. Lange16a while agreeing it was necessary to accept adjournment recalled that the Committee had previously adjourned until January 16th at the latest and that the Japanese had [Page 97] therefore already taken advantage of the Committee’s great efforts to meet them in every way.
The Committee decided to entrust the Bureau with drafting a communiqué embodying the above views”.
Communiqué follows:
“The President of the Committee of Nineteen in his statement of December 20 declared that the Committee felt that it would not be fulfilling its duty if it did not exhaust every effort for conciliation and show the utmost patience in its endeavor to reach a settlement.
The Committee of Nineteen today confirmed that view but considered that if the procedure under paragraph 3 of article 15 unhappily failed it was their duty to proceed as rapidly as possible to fulfill the task laid upon them by the Assembly resolution of March 11, 1932,17 to prepare, if need be, the draft of the report provided for in article 15, paragraph 4, of the Covenant.
At its meeting of December 20 the Committee had noted that the conversations entered into with the parties by its President and the Secretary General would need a certain time.
Since then these conversations have been continued. No fresh proposal has been received apart from those of the Chinese Government. The Japanese delegation in its conversations with the President and the Secretary General has declared that it is communicating with its Government concerning fresh proposals that may be submitted to the Committee and has announced that it will be in a position to inform the Committee of its point of view in 48 hours.
Deeming it necessary to consider finally and as soon as possible whether it is possible for the Assembly to fulfill its mission under paragraph 3 of article 15 of the Covenant the Committee thought it necessary to accept this short adjournment”.
- Arthur Sweetser, U. S. member, information section, League of Nations.↩
- Sean Lester, Irish representative, League of Nations.↩
- René Massigli, French representative, League of Nations.↩
- Giuseppe Motta, Swiss representative, League of Nations.↩
- Christian L. Lange, Norwegian representative, League of Nations.↩
- Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 210.↩