Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1934, The Far East, Volume III

793.94/6624: Telegram

The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, April 28, 1934—11 a.m.
[Received 1:10 p.m.⁷³]

61. Consulate’s 59, April 26, 5 p.m.,⁷⁴ paragraph 3.

1. I have found the occasion to ascertain privately from Avenol in a manner strictly conforming with the Department’s 30, April 25, 6 p.m., paragraph 2, his views of League policy vis-à-vis the Far Eastern situation. The points which he covered are as follows:

(a) He stated that a public misunderstanding had been created which was doubtless somewhat inspired concerning an alleged relationship between the operations of the Monnet consortium⁷⁵ and the League project of technical assistance to China. He declared that the relationship which was asserted in some quarters to exist was in any event absolutely without authority on the side of the League and therefore was juridically speaking nonexistent. He admitted that in this respect rumors were current regarding understandings between Rajchman and Monnet as were also current more general allegations regarding political activities on the part of Rajchman. To dispel any question that the League had improperly associated political action with its technical work he intended to take steps to clarify the entire matter. This clarification would be accomplished either in the meeting in May of the Commission on Technical Assistance at the time when Rajchman presents his report to that body or if it should eventuate that a public discussion of this matter would seem undesirable the question would be adjusted in some other manner outside the Commission. His manner of expressing himself on this point carried the implication that should it be shown that Rajchman had engaged himself politically or undertaken action beyond the scope of his mandate from the League it might become necessary that he be repudiated.

(b) Respecting what Avenol stated to me regarding the position of the League in the face of the current situation in the Far East I will say that it bore no resemblance whatever to the League’s attitude at the outbreak of the Manchurian affair in 1931 either technically or in its more general political aspects. Avenol asserted to me that no information had been conveyed to him either specifically or generally regarding the pertinent policy of the League powers and that officially he had no intimations of their policies. His general comment on the policy of the powers did not go beyond current press accounts. Describing the present situation as a “different and greater issue” than the original Manchurian affair he said that he did not perceive that the League was involved in it in any way and that in so far as his control of influence reached it was his intention that the League should not be involved. In particular he would endeavor to avoid that the current issue be linked de jure in any way with the “Sino-Japanese dispute” of which the League of course remained technically seized.

(c) As a direct corollary of the foregoing he said that it must be admitted that the mandate of the Assembly Consultative Committee on the Sino-Japanese dispute could be interpreted as embodying the current issue as in a broad sense the two were inextricably linked. Any member of the Committee could of course raise the question in that light. He did not believe, however, that any state would do so primarily because he thought that no general support would be accorded such action and incidentally because it would result in doing China a disservice as suggested in my 58, April 26, 4 p.m., paragraph 4.⁷⁶ The present program for the forthcoming meeting of the Commission was that its deliberations should be confined solely to the postal question which was on its agenda.

(d) In a like manner the members of the Commission on Technical Assistance with the possible exception of some action for a clarification of its position as discussed above would confine itself to purely technical questions.

The element of positive League policy in the Far East to which Avenol gave utterance was a strong assertion that he was determined that the League would continue to pursue a “modest” program of technical assistance to China and that any interference with such an appropriate activity would be combated.

(e) Regarding China’s preoccupations respecting League action as reported in my 58, of which I find Avenol was also generally cognizant he stated that he did not believe that the situation would afford an opportunity to China to raise the question in any way.

2. In all of the foregoing Avenol expressed himself clearly and unequivocally. While League action rests on the will of League states and while Avenol naturally only spoke as Secretary General I think that it may be reasonably assumed that he has general or special knowledge of the position of the principal League powers vis-à-vis the League in these respects and that such knowledge was in the background of what he had to say.

3. Both in its bearing as explanatory of the position of the League in the present issue and as of interest to the Department in other spheres I took the opportunity which was presented me to inquire whether this position of the League as he described it respecting the Far Eastern political situation might be considered as illustrative of a more general policy of the League in all political matters. The answer Avenol gave me was naturally not a direct affirmation, it was tantamount to saying that the League for an indefinite future in so far as it could consistently do so would avoid the handling of new political questions and likewise in so far as possible would seek to avoid action in those which were now before it which would jeopardize continued League support by the League states particularly concerned. As is obvious no specific vote or conclusive forecast of League policy in such respects is possible inasmuch as the League’s position will undoubtedly be governed by unforeseeable political situations. What Avenol had to say in these respects, however, carried connotations of my discussion of this subject in Consulate’s despatches 835 political, March 7 and 863 political, April 5.⁷⁷

4. In this general connection on the basis that League action rests upon the will of League states particularly the Great Powers competent opinion in Geneva presents the Far Eastern question at least in some of its aspects as possibly coming before the League in two ways.

(a) Great Britain if she finds her interests in the Far East vitally affected may at some stage seek to employ the League of Nations as an agency to promote her policy.

(b) France with her relations with the Soviet Government in the background and also as associated with the question of Russia’s possible approach to the League might bring the question into the League to accomplish a primarily political maneuver (Consulate’s despatch 858 political March 27 [28]).⁷⁸

The recent anti-Japanese utterances of Mussolini in so far as they may reflect definite Italian policy are also seen as having a possible bearing on the situation.

5. Avenol requested that I regard his expressions to me as strictly confidential.

Gilbert

73. Telegram in two sections.
74. Not printed.
75. Jean Monnet of Paris visited China to organize a banking group to aid Chinese reconstruction. See pp. 371 ff.
76. Not printed; in paragraph 4 Mr. Gilbert stated that to raise the question without support from the Great Powers would obviously be more detrimental to Chinese interests than not to raise it at all (793.94/6620).
77. Neither printed.
78. Not printed.