793.94/9974
Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck)
| Conversation: | The Secretary of State; |
| The Chinese Ambassador, Dr. C. T. Wang. | |
| Present: Mr. Hornbeck. |
The Chinese Ambassador called at his own request at 11:30 this morning.
The Secretary inquired about the latest news of the situation in China. The Ambassador replied that there was very severe fighting. The Secretary inquired whether the official news differed from the press news. The Ambassador replied that they were about the same, as there is no great amount of censorship.
The Ambassador then said that the Chinese Government has decided to invoke, at the coming meeting of the League, Article 17 of the Covenant and if it does not succeed in that approach then to invoke Article 16. They hoped that the American Government would give moral support through its membership on the Advisory Committee. The Secretary commented on the fact that, although the American Government has expressed itself openly and vigorously on the subject of policy, other governments have remained mute. He asked: If they will not speak, how can it be expected that they will act? He said that, with us, Congress has passed a Neutrality Act.16 This is something that lies ahead of us. We are “on a twenty-four hour basis.” If other governments will not even speak, what does China expect of us. The Ambassador replied that China as a member of the League felt that she must appeal to the League. They wanted to make every move of theirs known officially to the American Government.
[Page 12]The Secretary inquired what would happen under Article 16. The Ambassador replied that the procedure was all written out. The Secretary referred to experience in connection with Article 16 in the Italian-Ethiopian controversy.17 The Ambassador said that he imagined that his Government did not expect that much action would be taken. The Secretary said that it was for that reason that he wondered what the Chinese Government expected to accomplish: whether such an appeal would not be “an advance backward.” The Ambassador expressed the view that an advantage would be gained by calling the world’s attention to the situation. The Secretary suggested that introducing the question of sanctions—notwithstanding experience—might neutralize the benefits of an appeal to the League through the bad effects of a rebuff. If the experience with Italy is repeated, what does China gain; would it not do China’s cause harm. The Secretary explained that he was merely speaking as an individual, he was not expressing an official opinion.
The Ambassador said that he assumed that the voicing by the Secretary of a personal view would not indicate that the American Government was not willing to give support. The Secretary replied that the Chinese must consider our record; they must take notice of our historic position. The Ambassador said that he understood. He mentioned the record of 1932. The Secretary replied that sanctions were not at that time tried. He called attention to the fact that the Ambassador was now asking us to do a certain thing, whence it followed that it was appropriate for him, the Secretary, to ask questions.
There were exchanged certain remarks with regard to the severity of the fighting and the unfortunate character of the whole situation; and the conversation there ended.
- Approved August 31, 1935; 49 Stat. 1081; as amended February 29, 1936, and May 1, 1937, 49 Stat. 1152, and 50 Stat. 121.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1935, vol. i, pp. 836 ff., and ibid., 1936, vol. iii, pp. 88 ff.↩