125.633/12–149: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 1—4:31 p. m.]
4794. Reference announcement by State Department press officers on November 3086 to effect that UK was included among those countries which had protested, or would protest to Chinese Communists re Ward case. Foreign Office news department official telephoned Embassy this morning stating Foreign Office had not actually promised to protest and would forward immediately to Embassy a note giving its position. In afternoon, the news department of Foreign Office telephoned again saying that in answer to questions arising out of Department’s press statement, Foreign Office news department was replying that they had instructed British Consul General at Peking to do everything possible to persuade local authorities to accord proper treatment to staff of US Consulate General at Mukden. They were also saying to the press that a note stating the British Government’s position had been sent. Text of this note which has just arrived reads as follows:
“Dear Ringwalt:87 You were good enough to inform me in your letter of 28 November that the United States Government still feel [Page 1031] that despite the release of Mr. Angus Ward some protest should be addressed to the Communist authorities by the powers represented at Peking at the flagrant violation of the accepted standards of international conduct which the circumstances of his arrest and trial represent. The State Department further cited the subsequent arrest of Mr. Stokes as a fresh instance of the Communists’ contempt for the principles of the international conduct, though I gather from the press that Mr. Stokes has subsequently been released.
“Most careful and sympathetic consideration has not [now] been given to this request, but we are very doubtful whether, in present circumstances, representations by us on the lines suggested would achieve any purpose. Respect for the accepted standards of international conduct is a matter to which His Majesty’s Government naturally attach considerable importance; but, as the State Department are aware, foreign representatives are left, pending recognition, without any official status, and such contacts as they have with the Chinese authorities are at a low level in the hierarchy and on a personal basis. In these circumstances, little purpose is likely to be served by adopting the procedure which would normally be followed if diplomatic relations existed between the Chinese Communist Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.
“It will be clear from the Foreign Secretary’s letter to Mr. Douglas of November 2588 that His Majesty’s Consular Officers in Communistic China have done all they could unofficially to help Mr. Ward and his staff and will most surely continue to do so if need arise. We are, nevertheless, instructing H. M. Consul-General in Peking to do anything that may lie within his power to persuade the local authorities to accord proper treatment to the staff of the United States Consulate-General at Mukden. Yours sincerely, P. W. Scarlett.”
- Michael J. McDermott, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for press relations, commented on a note sent by the Secretary recently to 30 countries having diplomatic representation in China (see circular telegram of November 18, 10 a. m., p. 1009), and named the following 12 countries that had protested or would do so: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Egypt, France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of the Philippines.↩
- Arthur K. Bingwalt, First Secretary of Embassy in the United Kingdom.↩
- Not printed.↩