500.C1197/660

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

No. 796 Political

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith three copies of document C.24(1).1934.XI dated January 19, 1934,1 containing the report adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on January 20 relating to the work of the Opium Advisory Committee during its 17th Session. In addition to commenting on the questions raised by the Advisory Committee the report is executory in character, containing directions to the Secretary-General for giving effect to the Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Generally speaking, this report is self contained and requires no comment. There were, however, developments relating to the subject of the situation in Manchuria and Jehol territory which are not brought out in the report and which I set forth below for the Department’s information.

The subject of the report of the Advisory Committee on its 17th Session, with the Polish representative on the Council named as rapporteur, appeared on the Council’s agenda for the first meeting of the last session which convened on January 15. The discussion of this question by the Council was adjourned on that date and was subsequently adjourned from day to day until the closing meeting of the Session.

Mr. Hoo2 of the Chinese Permanent Delegation at Geneva has explained to me the reasons for this postponement. The original report of the rapporteur on the subject, which was dated January 10, 1934, was, Mr. Hoo assures me, prepared for the Polish representative by the Opium Section of the Secretariat. I may add in passing that the preparation of such reports on technical questions by the Secretariat is a common practice and has grown up naturally as a result of the circumstance that the Council representatives, in addition to being [Page 350] occupied with a large number of questions in a short period of time, are frequently not conversant with the details of the question for which they have been appointed rapporteurs. In the present instance, Mr. Hoo expressed the conviction that the subject was placed on the agenda of the first meeting of the Council intentionally in order to allow the report to be passed upon quietly before Mr. Wellington Koo, the Chinese representative, would have time, after his arrival at Geneva, to give it a thorough examination. Mr. Hoo being present, however, scrutinized the report very carefully and on Mr. Koo’s arrival he called the latter’s attention to the desirability of amending certain portions of the report relating to the situation in Manchuria and Jehol territory. In consequence when the Council met in private session just prior to its public meeting on January 15, Mr. Koo requested that the discussion of the report be postponed. One copy of the rapporteur’s report as originally drafted (document C.24.1934.XI) is likewise enclosed herewith.3

Afterwards, the Chinese delegation presented in private to the Polish representative as rapporteur two amendments to his report which are set forth below. The Polish representative, so Mr. Hoo informed me, immediately accepted these amendments so far as he was concerned.

Mr. Hoo then took up the matter with Mr. Ekstrand, Director of the Opium Section of the Secretariat, who suggested the holding of an informal meeting of those members of the Council more directly interested in the question. It was arranged therefore that a meeting take place to be attended by the representatives of the following countries: Great Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, and Poland, the latter in his capacity as rapporteur. The Spanish representative, Mr. de Madariaga, who had always shown a great interest in all matters relating to the recognition of “Manchukuo”, was not invited to attend, but having heard of the meeting came and expressed the desire to take part in the discussions. Of course his request could not well be refused. Just before Mr. de Madariaga made his appearance, Mr. Hoo had suggested that the Spanish representative be invited to come but he was told that only those members of the Council had been notified of the meeting who might have some objections to the Chinese amendments. They felt that Mr. de Madariaga would probably not object to these amendments. By a striking coincidence, which I gather may be attributed to the alertness of Mr. Blanco, the Spanish representative arrived at the meeting shortly after the discussion had begun.

I quote below the amendments submitted by the Chinese representative:

[Page 351]

1. In the section of the original draft report dealing with Manchuria and Jehol territory, the rapporteur in his concluding remarks paraphrased as follows the recommendations of the Opium Advisory Committee:

“Moreover, in view of the fears expressed as to the possibility of the aggravation of the position in that territory, I think my colleagues will wish to give effect to the Committee’s recommendation to draw the attention of the chief producing and manufacturing countries now to the necessity of supervising most strictly any application for the introduction of narcotics into the territory and that the Council instruct the Secretary-General to write to the governments concerned in that sense.”

The Chinese representative proposed that the following paragraph be added at this point:

“It is understood that conformably to the conventions in force requests for the exportation of opium (raw and prepared) to this territory can in no case be authorized any more than they can be authorized for the whole of the territory of China.”

2. The original report then continued as follows:

“Finally, in order to dispel any possible misunderstanding as to the position of this territory, in regard to the international opium conventions, the Council will, I think, in agreement with the Advisory Committee, desire to make it clear that the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of the Assembly concerning the export of opium and other dangerous drugs to this territory cannot in any way modify the obligations of the governments under the terms of any international opium conventions or agreements, including the Hague Convention of 1912,4 and, in particular, Articles 3 and 15 of that Convention.”

The Chinese representative proposed that the following paragraph be added at this point:

“It follows as a necessary corollary of this declaration that the obligations of the Governments under the above-mentioned international conventions or agreements should be carried out in such a way as will not directly or indirectly infringe the principle of non-recognition of the present régime in the said territory—as adopted by the extraordinary Assembly on February 24, 1933;5 nor should the recommendations of June (7th or 9th) 1933 of the Advisory Committee of this Assembly6 appointed to follow the situation in the Far East be interpreted in a way directly or indirectly infringing the above-mentioned principle.”

[Page 352]

In a private meeting held on Wednesday evening, January 17, the first of these amendments was accepted by all those present except the British representative who maintained his objections to the end. Mr. Hoo learned on the following morning, however, that nearly all had changed their position and were unwilling to accept the amendment. He attributed this to British persuasion.

In regard to the second amendment, few if any of the members of the Council present were willing to accept it. In the case of both amendments, those who were opposed to them could not, of course, Mr. Hoo said, bring forward any objection of principle, since the principles had already been established, but resorted to objections of procedure such as the following: that these questions were political and could not properly be handled by the Council in the present connection and should consequently be referred to the Advisory Committee on the Sino-Japanese conflict; or that the Council could not interpret the recommendations of this Advisory Committee; or that these amendments were entirely unnecessary, since the principles had already been accepted. In spite of the counter arguments brought forward by the Chinese representative it was apparent to him that the Council did not wish to approve any statement committing itself to a definite stand on the question of the non-recognition of “Manchukuo”.

At one time during these consultations the opponents of the amendments suggested that the Chinese position might be set forth in a statement by the Chinese representative before the Council with the understanding that his observations would be communicated by the Council to the Advisory Committee on the Sino-Japanese conflict. The Chinese representative however declined to accept this solution and continued to urge his amendments, or modifications thereof, in negotiations which lasted up until the evening before the closing meeting of the Council. An agreement was finally reached on the basis of the following compromise: the Council would accept the first amendment in a modified form if the Chinese representative would consent to abandon the second. As reported in the Consulate’s telegram No. 18, January 20, 10 p.m.,7 the pertinent passage of the report as finally adopted by the Council on January 20 reads as follows:

“Moreover, in view of the fears expressed as to the possibility of the aggravation of the position in that territory, I think my colleagues will wish to give effect to the Committee’s recommendation to draw the attention of the chief producing and manufacturing countries now to the necessity of supervising most strictly any application for the introduction of narcotics into the territory, and that the Council instruct the Secretary-General to write to the Governments concerned in that sense.

[Page 353]

It is understood that in accordance with articles 3, 8 and 15 of the Hague Convention of 1912 exports of opium (raw and prepared) to the territory in question cannot be authorized.

I therefore propose that the Secretary-General, in his letter to the Governments, should draw their attention to that point.”8

Mr. Hoo informed me subsequently that in spite of his failure to obtain the acceptance of his amendments as originally proposed, which brought into greater relief the political aspects of the question, he was nevertheless satisfied as a whole with the results of the negotiations and felt that he had won a victory of no small importance in obtaining the Council’s direct approval of a statement that exports of opium to the territory in question cannot be legally authorized. He was not convinced, however, that in practice this action on the part of the Council would prevent certain countries from trying to circumvent the provisions of the Hague Convention as well as the other conventions having a bearing on the subject.

In this connection, the fear has been expressed that in practice Japan can nullify any attempts to prevent the exportation of opium to “Manchukuo” by first importing the opium into Japan and then transshipping it to that territory, maintaining that such action would be legal since Japan recognizes “Manchukuo” as an independent country and not subject to Chinese law.

Composition of the Opium Advisory Committee.

One of the recommendations of the Opium Advisory Committee is not discussed in the report referred to above but is contained in a separate document. This is the report relating to the composition of the Advisory Committee and is contained in document C.23.1934.XI of which three copies are enclosed.9 This report covers the matter so thoroughly that no comment would seem to be necessary. It will be noted, however, that in addition to maintaining the present membership of 21 representatives, the Council approved the addition of representatives from the following countries: Canada, Persia, Sweden, and Turkey. It will likewise be noted that the Council did not commit itself to a decision concerning the maximum number of members which the Committee should comprise, preferring to retain its liberty of dealing with the composition of the Committee in accordance with the needs of the situation as they might arise. The Council further decided that the mandates of all members without distinction should be of indefinite duration, but that if any country failed to be represented [Page 354] on the Committee during two consecutive years its mandate would be deemed to have automatically expired at the end of that period.

Respectfully yours,

Prentiss B. Gilbert
  1. League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1934, pp. 157–160.
  2. Victor Chitsai Hoo, Chinese Minister in Switzerland.
  3. Not printed.
  4. Foreign Relations, 1912, p. 196.
  5. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 113.
  6. See Foreign Relations, 1933, vol. iii, p. 356. See also letter of June 12, 1933, from the Secretary General of the League of Nations, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 120.
  7. Not printed.
  8. The letters were dated March 19 and acknowledged by the Secretary of State on April 9 (500. C1197/688).
  9. Not printed.