124.93/318b
The Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hamilton) to the Counselor of Embassy in the United Kingdom (Atherton)
Dear Ray: This letter relates in general to the question of raising the legations in China to the status of embassy and in particular to a phase of that question which has a bearing upon the larger matter of cooperation between the American and the British Governments.
The enclosed statement21 summarizes the Department’s record of developments which resulted in the announcements that three legations in China (the American, British and Japanese) were to be raised to embassies. You will note from this record that the British Government merely notified us of its decision.
Frankly, we felt somewhat annoyed that the British failed to interchange views and discuss the matter with us prior to coming to a decision. There are of course a number of possible extenuating circumstances which occur to us. Normally, the Department would have addressed any inquiry to the British Government through the Embassy in London rather than through the British Embassy here. However, as the British Ambassador here had during the past few years been the channel of communication in regard to the matter, we wished to avoid creating any impression that we were going over the head of the Ambassador. Another extenuating circumstance may be the fact that the Ambassador happened to be away from Washington during the weekend when we took the matter up informally with the British Embassy. A further extenuating factor may be that, as the Japanese Government had indicated that it would postpone announcement of its decision for a period of only a week or ten days, the British Foreign Office may have considered that there was no time for consultation.
Although we were not under definite obligation to “consult,” we would have preferred, in the light of the statement which we had [Page 525] made on October 6, 1934, to the British22 that we would “expect first to confer with and/or give notice to the British Government …”, to have had an exchange of views with the British Foreign Office prior to the arriving at of a decision.
I am writing at this length because this case serves to emphasize what seems to us to be a distinction between our conception of cooperation and that of the British Foreign Office. Cooperation calls, as we envisage it, for prior consultation and frank exchange of views. The British concept seems as a rule to envisage (a) a certain amount of discussion; and (b) simply the giving of notice by them when they have decided to act along certain lines that they have so decided, with acceptance and action thereafter in accordance by us. In the case under reference, they did not at all follow the procedure designated (a). Moreover, it seems to us that when procedure (a), having been followed, does not result in an accord as to what action, if any, seems desirable, there should be, between (a) and (b), an intermediate step consisting of one party telling the other that it is inclined toward the taking of certain action but will—prior to proceeding on that line of action—give the other party an opportunity to comment or to decide in regard thereto. We realize, of course, that in the case immediately under discussion there was not time for all of this; but in various other cases there has been or would have been time.
As indicated in the last paragraph of Mr. Hornbeck’s23 letter of February 19, 1935,24 we desire sincerely that whenever and wherever practicable and appropriate, there may be cooperation between us and the British. With the thought of facilitating such cooperation, I wonder whether you would think it advisable at some opportune time informally to discuss the matter in your own tactful way with the appropriate official of the Foreign Office. Proceeding on the assumption that both the British Foreign Office and the Department sincerely desire to cooperate whenever practicable and appropriate, it seems to us that if and when there develops a situation wherein it is felt on either side that there has not been cooperation to the fullest extent, the thing to do is to talk the matter over frankly and informally. For we realize that what may appear to us as a perfectly logical deduction on the basis of the facts and circumstances known here may not be a logical deduction in the light of the facts and circumstances as presented at the London end.
With all best wishes, I am
Yours sincerely,