765.84/667: Telegram
The Chargé in Italy (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 27—4:40 p.m.]
410. The French Ambassador41 in discussing the forthcoming meeting of the League Council said that he considered it of great importance that some means be devised during the course of the meetings which would give satisfaction both to the Italian contention as to the limited scope of the discussions and to the British views as to the desirability of laying the entire conflict before the League. The contention of the Italians could be regarded as juridically sound in that they insisted that the agreement between Italy and Ethiopia, confirmed by the May resolutions,42 limited the work of the Conciliation Commission to ascertaining the facts and responsibilities for the Walwal and other incidents, and as that work had not been carried out that there was no occasion yet to place the entire conflict before the League Council. This view, however, was narrow in application and [Page 619] gave rise to the inference that the Italians exhibited interest in the resumption of the work of the Commission only when recently the possibility of broader League action became apparent. The British view, on the other hand, favoring as it did the complete statement of the controversy at Geneva, was more comprehensive in character but perhaps failed to regard the technical aspects of the proceedings. These two views, however, the Ambassador hoped could be reconciled at the Council meeting and to that end he made the following suggestion: The Council should be regarded as called in accordance with resolution 2 of May 25th. It should be bound by the terms of that resolution and by the agreements43 between the Italian and Ethiopian Governments as to the nature of the discussion in the commission provided in the treaty of 1928. It might even interpret those agreements and possibly consider the matter of the fifth arbitrator. However, in addition to this effort to give effect to the conciliation procedure as established, the Council should invite England, France, and Italy to enter into conference to attempt to find a pacific solution of the entire conflict and if possible reach this solution before August 25th when the Council meets again. This the Ambassador suggested would tend to meet both views, would adequately safeguard League prestige, and would further the chances of avoiding hostilities unless of course Italy intended in any event to launch an attack even before August 25th. England, he thought, might agree to this plan and he hoped Italy could be persuaded.
The Ambassador again referred to the interest of France in the League and in preserving her friendship with England and Italy (see my 332, July 2, 11 a.m.). He said that the League was of the greatest importance to France not only as a factor in her relations with England but also as a basic element of her post-war policies in Central Europe and more especially in the Danubian basin. A close cooperation with England and Italy was necessary to France and must not be endangered. The Italo-Abyssinian conflict was a menace to that cooperation. Mussolini had large pretensions and had gone far in committing himself to a definite policy in following those aims. Some solution, however, was still possible he thought and the Ambassador referred to the case of Irak and to a lower degree that of Morocco which have been suggested as pointing the way to a solution which would prevent war. Some fighting he said might have to be engaged in but the chief danger lay in a declaration of war and that he hoped could be avoided both through the possible development of circumstances within Ethiopia and by the efforts which were being made outside to maintain peace.