793.94/2182: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 17—1:14 a.m.]
210. Discussion of the proposal to invite the United States to participate in the deliberations of the Council touching the application of the Pact of Paris was concluded at a public meeting this morning following which the invitation was extended. It is understood that the debate today was a formal repetition of that which took place in yesterday evening’s private meeting (Consulate’s 202, October 15, 9 p.m.).
Briand opened the discussion by reading a letter addressed by Yoshizawa, following an earlier conversation between them, basing objection to the invitation on juridical grounds on the principle that the proposal was incompatible with the Covenant. The letter questioned: whether within the meaning of article 4 of the Covenant the United States could be invited by a state particularly interested in matters concerning article 11; (2) whether the status of an invited representative of a nonmember state could be that of observer with right of discussion or of fully qualified member of the Council; (3) whether a precedent would thereby be established in all questions relating to article 11; (4) the constitutionality of deciding upon an invitation without a unanimous vote of the Council. In his written reply which he also read Briand pointed out that it was not a question of inviting the United States to be a Council member, that an invitation was fully in accord with the previous resolution of joint cooperation and that as the invitation was clearly a question of procedure, a majority vote sufficed. With regard to precedent, he saw no objection to the Council taking similar action in the future.
It has been learned that in an effort to make a concession to Japanese objections, the appointment of a committee of jurists to examine the legal aspects of the question was considered yesterday evening. The [Page 213] Japanese refusing, however, to be bound by their decision, the motion was defeated against the affirmative votes of Japan and Germany; the Japanese delegate explained that his inability to accept the findings of such a committee arose from a conviction that, the Council being sovereign, the opinion of its members cannot be anticipated by any other committee or body not excluding the Permanent Court of International Justice. He affirmed that he objected purely on a question of principle and that in the fundamental aspects of the matter Japan appreciated “the friendly and understanding attitude of the United States in the present circumstances.” Lord Reading vigorously sustained the thesis that the invitation be voted upon as a question of procedure as provided in article 5 claiming that if the contrary were upheld there could never be raised any question of procedure under article 11 which is no different from any other article in the Covenant. He urged upon the Japanese representative to content him [self?] with discharging his judicial scruples in the form of the protest he had already made and refrain from delaying further consideration of a settlement which Japan declared it earnestly desired.
In a final statement Yoshizawa regretted that inasmuch as his Government regarded the question a matter of substance and not of procedure his attitude remained unchanged. The debate on this issue progressed no further beyond this point and the decision of yesterday evening’s meeting was considered sustained without a regular vote.
Among subsequent observations made by the other members of the Council, that of the representative of Poland is of interest, it being to the effect that his Government regarded the major constitutional question as to who is to decide whether a question before the Council is one of procedure or one of substance or how that question is to be decided was not settled by yesterday’s vote but was reserved; in this particular instance he affirmed that Poland considered it temporarily set aside on the ground that the initial decision to exchange information with the United States had been carried by one unanimous vote. The representatives of Yugoslavia and Norway associated themselves with this view.