862i.01/68

The Ambassador in France (Wallace) to the Secretary of State

No. 2209

Sir: In confirmation of my telegram No. 156, March 1, 8 p.m.,7 I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy and English translation of a note dated March 1, from His Excellency Senhor Gastao da Cunha, President of the Council of the League of Nations,7 transmitting the reply—the original text of which is likewise enclosed herewith—of the Council to your communication of February 21st last.

There is also enclosed herewith a copy and translation of my note7 in reply to the aforementioned letter of Mr. da Cunha, dated March 3rd, 1921, in accordance with the instructions contained in your telegram No. 127, March 2, 12 a.m.7

I have [etc.]

Hugh C. Wallace
[Enclosure]

The President of the Council of the League of Nations (Da Cunha) to the Secretary of State

I am directed by the Council of the League of Nations to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of February 21 on certain matters connected with the Mandates which, under the provisions of the Covenant, will define the responsibilities and limit the powers of the Governments entrusted with the administration of various territories, outside Europe, formerly in the possession of Germany and Turkey.

The main points brought out in the American Note, if I may be permitted to summarise them, are that the United States must be consulted before any Mandates are allotted or defined, and that the frankest discussion from all pertinent points of view should be encouraged. [Page 94] In the “A” Mandates, exception is taken to the possible limitation of commercial opportunity as regards oil in Mesopotamia and in the “C” Mandates to the allocation of the Island of Yap to Japan.

The Council wishes to express its deep satisfaction at the interest shown by your Government in this question, which the Council has long felt to be among the most important assigned to the League. Undoubtedly, also, it is one of the most difficult, and the Council not only welcomes but feels justified in claiming the sympathy and support of the Governments which devised the scheme which the Council is required to administer.

The most fundamental contention brought forward by the American Note is that the “approval of the United States of America is essential to the validity of any determination which may be reached” respecting the Mandates which have been, or may be submitted to the judgment of the Council. The United States was one of the leading actors, both in the war and in the negotiations for peace. The rights which it acquired are not likely to be challenged in any quarter. But the American Government will itself recognise that the situation is complicated by the fact that the United States, for reasons which the Council would be the last to question, has so far abstained from ratifying the Peace Treaty, and has not taken her seat on the Council of the League of Nations.

The Council might easily have dwelt on the controversial aspects of the American Note. But this procedure would ill-represent their true attitude. They prefer to examine the subject from the broad basis of international co-operation and friendship, in the belief that this course will appeal to the spirit of justice of the Government and people of the United States.

The Council has taken several important decisions with regard to Mandates, which it confidently hopes will commend themselves to the American Government.

The Council had already determined on February 21, before the receipt of the American Note, to postpone the consideration of the “A” Mandates for former Turkish possessions, including Mesopotamia. No conclusions will therefore be reached with regard to “A” Mandates until the United States Government has had an opportunity to express its views.

The Council had expected to approve finally at the Session now being held the “B” Mandates for the former Central African Colonies for [of] Germany.

In view of the desire expressed by the United States, the Council is, however, deferring its consideration of these Mandates until its next Session which will probably take place in May or June. It is [Page 95] hoped that the delay will not hamper the administrative progress of these territories.

The Council invites the United States to take part in the discussions at its forthcoming meeting when the final decisions as to the “A” and “B” Mandates will, it is hoped, be taken. A problem so intricate and involved as that of Mandates can hardly be handled by the interchange of formal notes. It can only be satisfactorily solved by personal contact and by direct exchange of opinion.

Not only do such direct negotiations, which correspond to the true spirit of the League of Nations effect an increase of freedom, flexibility and speed, but they create a spirit of mutual good-will and co-operation among people meeting around the same table.

Regarding the third type of Mandates, the “C” group of former German possessions in South [West?] Africa and the Pacific, the Council has not the advantage of the same liberty of action as in the “A” and “B” types. The “C” Mandates were defined by the Council at its Meeting in Geneva on December 17, 1920. The main American objection in this case, it is understood from Your Excellency’s Note, is to the effect that the Island of Yap was included by the Council in the Mandate given to Japan, whereas Your Excellency states that the United States has on several occasions refused to agree to the allocation of this Island to any one State.

The Council of the League of Nations would remind Your Excellency that the allocation of all the Mandated territories is a function of the Supreme Council and not of the Council of the League. The League is concerned, not with the allocation but with the administration of these territories. Having been notified in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers that all the Islands North of the Equator had been allocated to Japan, the Council of the League merely fulfilled its responsibility of defining the terms of the Mandate.

Consequently, if a misunderstanding exists as to the allocation of the Island of Yap, that misunderstanding would seem to be between the United States and the Principal Allied Powers rather than between the United States and the League. However, in view of the American contention the Council of the League has hastened to forward the American Note to the Governments of France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan.

The Council hopes that these explanations will prove satisfactory to the United States Government, and that reciprocal good-will will find a solution in harmony with the generous spirit which inspired the principle of the Mandates.

Gastao da Cunha

  1. Not printed.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Not printed.
  4. Not printed.