Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1942, China

793.003/952: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)

Washington, October 21, 1942—10 p.m.

5200. Your 5875, October 21, 1 p.m., and 5876, October 21, 2 p.m.

1. With regard to (A), Article III, we are glad to have the clarifying statement of the British Government relating to the additional sentence proposed by the British Government. Upon further consideration, it seems to us that it would not be wise to add this sentence. We believe that there is some likelihood that the Chinese Government will raise objection to the second paragraph of the article as it stands without the additional sentence and that the inclusion of such an addition would substantially increase that likelihood. Moreover, we feel that the assumption of obligation by the Chinese Government itself is sufficient safeguard. For these reasons, as well as for the reason previously given that it seems advisable to us to avoid too great particularization and to keep the treaty to broad general terms, we regret that we do not feel that we can adopt the proposed additional sentence.

2. With regard to (B), Article IV, it is still not clear to us exactly what the British Government has in mind by its proposed addition. This Government has no intention of supporting an American national in any claim regarding real property deriving from any illegal process and therefore regards the British proposed addition, in so far as we understand it, as not necessary. In so far as this proposal envisages protection of valid British claims against confiscation under the aegis of Japanese occupation, we think that the article as drafted without the addition takes care of such a matter. We doubt whether the Chinese Government would understand the exact meaning of the proposed addition and we therefore anticipate that its inclusion would be likely to result in extended discussion and consequent delay. We therefore are not adopting this suggestion, although we do not perceive any strong objection to the British Government’s including the addition in its draft if it, after consideration of our comment, regards such addition as desirable.

3. With regard to (C), Article V, we are glad to note that the British Government is deleting the last sentence of the addition previously proposed by the British Government. As previously stated, we have continued our study of the British Government’s suggestion. This study confirms us in the opinion that from our point of view the subject matter of the first sentence suggested by the British might more appropriately be taken care of in the comprehensive treaty which we envisage negotiating with China at some subsequent time and might also in the form proposed raise for us difficult questions relating to Federal and State jurisdictions. We therefore are not including in our draft this proposed British addition.

4. With regard to (D), Article VII, and (E), Article I, there appears to be agreement.

5. With regard to (G), Article VI, we note that there is little difference of substance between the American draft and the British draft. In as much as the American draft conforms more nearly to points already embodied in existing American treaties, we are retaining our draft. We assume that the British Government will use its draft. We would point out for the consideration of the British Government that the British draft does not accord a right of visit to nationals under detention.

6. With regard to (H), relating to the proposed note from the Chinese Government, we do not understand the British Government’s statement that they will take up the substance of that note with the Chinese Government informally “in the first-place”. While this Government is prepared to suggest to the Chinese Government informally that the Chinese Government may care, of its own initiative and as a unilateral act on its part and in whatever way the Chinese Government wishes, to take whatever steps it might consider appropriate to provide for treatment of foreigners in China along the lines set forth in the first two paragraphs of the proposed note, and perhaps to provide for some of the matters contained in the third paragraph, we continue to feel strongly that it would be inadvisable to suggest, either formally or informally, to the Chinese Government that it give a note covering the points mentioned. Before we can decide to mention the matter informally to the Chinese Government, we should like to be sure that we understand the British Government’s position in this respect.

7. We note that the amendments to this Government’s draft communicated in the Department’s 5146, October 19, 5 p.m., and 5147, October 19, 6 p.m., are acceptable to and will be adopted by the British Government.

8. We understand that the Government of the United States and the British Government are now in substantial agreement and know what each Government intends to embody in the draft treaty which each will present to the Chinese Government for that Government’s consideration. We realize, as stated by the British Government, that phraseology which suits the position in the United States might not exactly suit the position in the United Kingdom, and vice versa. On this point we would observe, however, that there are obvious and definite advantages to the British treaty and the American treaty being as nearly identical as circumstances permit. We also venture to repeat our view that it is desirable that these treaties be drafted along broad general lines and that they avoid particularization which can appropriately be left to the negotiation later of comprehensive treaties and which, if included in the present drafts of proposed treaties, might cause the Chinese to present detailed desiderata of their own and thus delay the conclusion of the treaties and dissipate the wholesome and beneficial psychological atmosphere which has thus far resulted and which we earnestly hope may be continued. We should greatly appreciate it if the British Government would give further thought to these basic considerations with special reference to the additions it has proposed to Article V and to Article III.

9. In response to Mr. Eden’s suggestion we shall postpone the presentation of the text of the draft treaty to the Chinese Ambassador until Saturday morning, October 24. In so doing we shall ask the Chinese Ambassador to regard the text as confidential until agreement thereon has been reached between this Government and the Chinese Government. We shall inform the press after the Chinese Ambassador calls that we have given the Chinese Ambassador a draft treaty for consideration of his Government. We suggest that the British Government may care to follow a similar procedure.

10. We appreciate the understanding attitude and expedition which the British Government has shown in regard to all aspects of this question and I ask that you so inform Mr. Eden.

11. I am grateful to you and the Embassy for your and their most effective cooperation.

Hull