793.94/10459: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Harrison) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 6—3:13 p.m.]
32. My 29, October 5, 8 [9?] p.m.77 During the Subcommittee’s consideration yesterday afternoon of the proposal submitted by the Drafting Committee, text of which was reported in my telegram 28, October 5, 7 p.m.,77 Jordan78 referring to the last paragraph of the proposed report expressed the view that the phrase “refrain from taking any action which, et cetera” would be generally interpreted in the sense that economic sanctions should not be applied to China. He urged that a stronger phrase be used such as “should deter Japan from continuing its present form of aggression against China”.
Koo proposed to insert the words “extend aid to China” between the words “should” and “refrain”. When asked by de Graeff and Cranborne to specify what was meant by aid Koo suggested that the following words be added to his amendment: “relating to the supply of materials and financial facilities”. He explained that he had in mind such practical aid as might be obtainable through agreements between China and such member states as may be in a position to extend it.
[Page 60]Ensuing discussion Litvinov declared the League should approve help given China [as?] careful compromise action in aid of the victim of aggression; the action proposed would not interfere with a Nine-Power conference. Lagarde would not withhold aid by any state which felt it advisable or necessary but questioned whether the League should so recommend. Cranborne pointed out that the final paragraph outlines action “pending” results and is not a permanent League decision. He feared prejudicing action through the Nine-Power Treaty and declared the maximum the United States could accept was the wording “consider how far they can” et cetera. This was adopted as reported in my telegram under reference.
Koo also proposed that the following be inserted in paragraph 8 of the draft: “It is incumbent upon the members of the League not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris”. (Page 19 League document A extraordinary 1933 VII, Assembly resolution). Many South American treaties incorporated this doctrine, an American one. Cranborne and Lagarde urged Koo not to press his amendment.
Quevedo (Ecuador) referred to the South American declaration of August 3, 1932, as not recognizing the acquisition of territory by force, said he was not opposed personally to the amendment but that his vote should not be taken as an interpretation of the opinion of other American Republics.
Bruce felt very great reluctance to insert the amendment. Since signing the Pact of Paris, the experience of 1932 and other experiences in the last few years, the action of principles versus force had been seen. Alteration had been brought about by force. Under this doctrine no recognition was possible of a fait accompli contrary to the Covenant and the Paris Pact. While certain nations live up to their obligations they are nevertheless forced to alter their policies when other nations fail to observe these obligations. By a new affirmation of the character proposed a nation would be hopelessly embarrassed in a situation where it was unable to observe the obligations it had signed. The amendment would not improve the situation; there would be objections either in the Advisory Committee or in the Assembly and he strongly recommended that it should not be inserted.
De Graeff found the moment not propitious. The conquest of Ethiopia had occurred. The doctrine should not be reaffirmed.
Koo said in the face of the views expressed he would abandon the amendment for the time being.
As a substitute suggestion Lagarde proposed that in the report note should be taken of the Japanese assurance that Japan did not intend to prejudice the territorial integrity of China; the Committee attached [Page 61] the greatest importance to this assurance. Litvinov opposed this suggestion referring to the case of Manchuria; Koo stated that he preferred his original proposal. He also referred to the wording of the first paragraph of article No. 1 of the Washington Treaty.
Lagarde withdrew his suggestion. There thus remained only Jordan’s proposal. This was finally put to a vote by showing of hands. The United Kingdom, France, Australia, the Netherlands were opposed and New Zealand, Russia and China in favor. The other delegates did not express their vote. The Jordan proposal was defeated.
Cranborne proposed and the Committee accepted to substitute the words “parties to” for the words “signatories of” in the antepenultimate paragraph, as reported in my telegram under reference.
The draft second report was adopted with the foregoing amendments,79 the Polish delegate stating that he would abstain from voting.
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Representing New Zealand.↩
- For text of report, see Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 394.↩