Office of the Historian

893.71 Manchuria/57: Telegram

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

Geneva, May 14, 1934—4 p.m.
[Received May 14—12:25 p.m.]

247. Your instruction of April 24 concerning “Manchukuo” Advisory Committee received yesterday. This morning I learn from Haas that the meeting today is merely to select officers and that at the meeting scheduled Wednesday afternoon12 it is contemplated that the chairman will make a proposal to following effect:

(1)
It will be recalled that “Manchukuo” is not a member of the Universal Postal Union; that the Advisory Committee’s report of June 3rd last, paragraph 2, covered preventive action in case of application by “Manchukuo” for admission to Postal Union; that by this the Advisory Committee certainly did not mean that the Assembly resolution prohibited the forwarding of postal correspondence through Manchuria; that such practical steps as might be taken by the appropriate administrations of the states members of the League to enable the carrying on of such transit (under conditions in no sense implying de jure or de facto recognition of the existing regime in Manchuria) should not be regarded as inconsistent with that resolution.
(2)
The Advisory Committee is of opinion that:
(a)
“Manchukuo” cannot appeal to the provisions of the Universal Postal Union in regard to its relations with the postal administrations of the countries belonging to the Universal Postal Union.
(b)
The Assembly’s report and the Advisory Committee’s recommendation cannot be construed to preclude the competent technical administrations of members of the League from taking temporary measures which, not being based upon an international convention and not involving the conclusion of an international convention or the use of an organization created by an international convention, may seem to them advisable in order to permit the forwarding of postal correspondence through Manchuria.
(c)
If such measures involve the establishment of relations between postal administrations of members of the League and the “Manchukuo” administration such relations should only be regarded [Page 178] as between administrations for the proper conduct of technical services and not as relations between states or governments. Lest the technical nature of such relations lead to confusion it is particularly recommended that should the postal administration of states members of the League address correspondence to the “Manchukuo” postal administration such communications should contain once for all an explicit statement that they are not to be regarded as communications between one government and another.

Comment follows in my 248, May 14, 5 p.m.

Wilson
  1. May 16.↩