793.94/2828: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in France (Shaw)
589. For Ambassador Dawes: Embassy’s No. 783, November 23, 3 a.m. Herewith are my views respecting the League Council’s proposed resolution (see Embassy’s 779, November 22, 8 p.m.) and the proposed Chinese resolution reported to me by the Minister in China under date of November 22, 1 a.m. These views may be communicated [Page 548] by you, so far as you in your discretion deem it wise, to Dr. Sze.
In the Council’s proposal the central point is the provision for a commission of neutrals with broad powers to study and to report upon all circumstances which threaten to disturb the peace between the two parties concerned or their good understanding upon which peace depends. In its possibilities for future good, this central point far transcends any proposal which I have seen thus far, not only during these protracted negotiations but also in any similar problem of the Far East. This proposal proceeds on principles underlying substantially all modern conciliation treaties executed by the states of the Western World, and it would, if adopted in this case, I believe, go farther in alining the peace methods of these two nations with those of the rest of the world than would any other step which might be taken. To me the proposal seems to furnish the most effective means possible to reach a general world understanding of the necessities underlying a permanent settlement of the Manchurian problem. The ultimate settlement of this problem must be reached by negotiations between China and Japan, but these negotiations will be more effective in arriving at a just and permanent solution if made in the light of such an investigation’s report than without it. The time required for the investigation also will afford a much needed chance for the cooling of existing hostile feeling. In my opinion, such a commission by its presence and operation will tend also to insure against these direct negotiations resulting in the imposition, by reason of military pressure, of unjust terms. Thus the provision for a commission preserves the essential principle which has been our common goal. The proposal contains also a repetition of the September 30 resolution with its covenant of Japanese troop withdrawal, as speedily as possible, within the railway zone. It contains also a covenant providing that the military commanders abstain from any initiative which may lead to more fighting. The language used for this last proposal appears to me to provide effectively for cessation of hostilities and probably is the best which can be drawn under present circumstances.
The proposal represents the painstaking efforts and negotiations of the representatives of the states gathered at Geneva, and later at Paris, in an earnest endeavor to find a peaceful settlement of this difficult problem. To this Government it seems, taken all in all, to indicate the most hopeful path to a solution, and this Government believes that the proposal carries with it a great presumption in its favor, and that its rejection would involve a serious responsibility.
As to the Chinese counterproposal, this has been given careful consideration also, but this Government does not hesitate to say that it [Page 549] does not regard this, even from the standpoint of China’s interest, as effective as the proposal offered by the League of Nations. The Chinese proposal, furthermore, contains a number of provisions which appear to this Government to be entirely impracticable.
When you have discussed the foregoing with Sze and have had his reaction to it, you may then, in your discretion, inform Briand that the Council’s proposal has been considered by this Government, which finds it apparently satisfactory and a very hopeful advance beyond the proposals made heretofore. Should you discuss the terms with Briand, emphasis should be laid on the proposition contained in the proposal for a cessation of hostilities, which I would think is an essential part, the absence of which would make the rest unsatisfactory.