Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1937, The Far East, Volume IV

793.94 Conference/263: Telegram

The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State

Brussels, November 17, 1937—3 p.m.
[Received November 17—1:05 p.m.]

41. Your 62, November 15, 7 p.m.

1. I calculate that we can probably wind up the present phase of our work here by the 25th and am planning to sail on the first American boat after that, the Washington sailing December 2.

2. I shall be pleased to receive the draft of your ideas of what you feel should be incorporated in the final resolution of the Conference.

3. I bow to your judgment and hope that it will be possible to make such a strong reaffirmation of the principles which underlie international relationships that it will not fall flat. However, all of the large and most of the small powers believe that a mere reaffirmation of principles, after a week’s adjournment, will not contribute to a solution of the concrete pressing problem which the Conference assembled to consider and which the actual situation in the Far East now presents and will be construed as clear evidence that the Conference powers do not intend to take any more positive steps toward making their views effective in a situation which [is?] constantly growing more destructive of their rights and interests and more difficult of a reasonable solution. Also they think that since Japan has so flatly rejected every effort to initiate even conversations we ought now either to drop the matter as gracefully as possible or do something more definite about it.

4. If you still think Japan may within a reasonable time agree to a tender of good offices or mediation I agree that we should delay taking any action which would be construed as hostile. The general opinion here, however, is that unless more firmness is shown and somewhat more pressure brought to bear Japan will continue to reject any mediation which would lead to a constructive settlement. We are unanimously of the opinion that it would be advisable and appropriate and we hoped it would meet with your approval that the final declaration in your resolution should include a reaffirmation of the non recognition policy reenforced by a policy of withholding loans and credits. However, as you apparently do not agree with us as to this it occurs to us that you might agree that it would be advisable at least to include something to the effect that if in the near future it is not possible to bring about negotiations looking to a settlement by agreement which it is still hoped may be possible it would then follow that (1) it would not be possible to recognize situations created in contravention of obligations and (2) confidence would be so shattered that the nations concerned would not feel justified in extending or encouraging loans and credits to the Japanese Government as long as it refuses to adhere to the obligations which it had assumed in treaties with them.

5. We fail to see how a declaration along the above lines which is intended to discourage continuance of hostilities and to help bring about a settlement by agreement would fall outside of the terms of reference of the Conference. We do not see how the fact that the nations of the League assembled at Geneva avoided the adoption of any such measures in any way bear upon the question of the functions and possible acts of the present Conference. The other principal powers here who happen also to be members of the League do not seem to have any such concept. Moreover, the action taken by the League was that of not tackling the problem but passing it on to be tackled by this Conference. Furthermore, since the time of the Geneva meeting the situation has further unrolled and the need for serious positive effort on the part of the powers has increased and become more obvious.

Davis