Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1931, The Far East, Volume III

793.94/3096: Telegram

The Chargé in France (Shaw) to the Secretary of State

Paris, December 8, 1931—1 a.m.
[Received December 8—1:03 a.m.⁵¹]

856. From Ambassador Dawes. Following is report from Sweetser:

“Ito reported to the Drafting Committee at a late meeting tonight the reply he had received from Tokyo on the two outstanding points.

• First. Tokyo accepted his redraft on the last paragraph of article 5 linking the commission with evacuation. The various members of the Committee however maintained the objections previously reported to this formula and continued their preference for a full statement in the declaration. Colban especially stressed that it would be impossible to send the commission and begin by saying that it could not do the main thing in mind unless especially authorized. Cecil felt the best solution was to put the Council’s original phraseology into the declaration.
• Second. Regarding police measures Ito pointed out that Japan had first wanted this provision in the resolution and then in the declaration but was finally willing to accept the third alternative of a unilateral declaration by itself, provided however there were no speeches in opposition made by the other members of the Council. Cecil pointed out that that would depend upon what the Japanese delegates said, whereupon Ito presented the following draft:

  ‘With regard to paragraph (2) of the draft resolution now before the Council, I am happy to accept it on behalf of the Japanese Government, on the understanding that this paragraph is not intended to preclude the Japanese forces from taking such action as may be rendered necessary to provide directly for the protection of the lives and property of Japanese subjects against the activities of bandits and lawless elements rampant in various parts of Manchuria. Such action is admittedly an exceptional measure called for by the special situation prevailing in Manchuria, and its necessity will naturally be obviated when normal conditions shall have been restored in that region.[’]

The Committee felt it would be impossible for the members of the Council not to be free to comment on this text. Cecil felt Japan might ask that there should not be an outcry against it but he did not think she could object if they explained their understanding of it. Drummond pointed out that the Japanese statement if passed without comment, would mean that the other members of the Council accepted it. Madariaga added that, if the Japanese made a declaration of this nature, he would have to comment at length. Cecil concluded that it would be impossible to ask twelve reasonable men not to make some sort of statement.

With this opposition, the Committee returned to the idea of including this matter in the declaration. The following text was presented and is now under discussion.

‘The Japanese Government has called the Council’s attention to the situation which exists in Manchuria. Following recent events banditry has increased in certain districts and constitutes a danger to the lives and property of the inhabitants. Under these circumstances the Japanese Government considers that its troops must be able to repel the incursions of bandits not only as they have done in the past when these incursions took place in the zone of the South Manchuria Railway but also in the event that attacks are made against localities outside the said zone temporarily occupied by Japanese troops. It goes without saying that as soon as these localities shall cease to be so occupied, the responsibility for their defense against bandits shall cease to be incumbent upon Japanese troops and shall once more be assumed by the Chinese authorities.’

Ito also presented certain further changes which the Committee did not feel able to accept. Most important was that to have the phrase ‘as speedily as possible’ stricken out from the first paragraph of the declaration relating to the withdrawal of the Japanese troops. This phrase, he said, was already included in the resolution and was hence unnecessary. Cecil, however, felt it impossible to agree to this; the Council had been asked to retreat step by step but could not go this far. Madariaga felt the suggestion would be very suspect by the other party; Leger felt that Ito’s objection made the phrase all the more necessary. The Committee therefore refused to accede to the suggestion.”

• [Dawes]
• Shaw

51. Telegram in three sections.