793.94/1900: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received 3:50 p.m.]
142. In the Council yesterday afternoon the Chinese and Japanese submitted the replies from their respective Governments to the Council’s telegram of September 22 and their representatives made certain additional assertions.
These were characterized by conflicting statements regarding recent happenings in Manchuria bearing on responsibility for the origin of the conflict and on the present location of troops, many of these being repetitions of previous statements.
The Japanese assertions respecting the position of their troops were substantially those reported in Department’s [Consulate’s] telegram 133, September 23, 8 p.m. and 140, September 25, 3 p.m. with the following additions. Japanese soldiers have now been mostly withdrawn within the railway zone. There still remain some detachments in Mukden and Kirin and “small number of men in a few other places”, but it is denied that Japanese troops have been sent north of Changchun or into Chientao or have taken control of Chinese railways between Mukden and Hsinmin or between Ssupingkai and Chengchiatun. Troops will be withdrawn from Kirin as soon as the menace to the South Manchuria Railway is removed.
The Chinese assertions were principally that Japanese forces now occupied important points in Manchuria, that Japanese soldiers examine travelers on Peking-Mukden trains and that press correspondents are subject to interference. Sze also asked the Japanese representative to explain exactly what was meant by a “small number of men in a few other places.”
With respect to policy Japanese position was reported that Japan has had no territorial designs in Manchuria but wishes to protect its rights and interests and the measures that have been taken are only to that end. The general commanding the troops has received orders not to extend operations and the number of soldiers now in Manchuria is not in excess of treaty stipulations. It is the intention of the Japanese Government to withdraw the troops as calm is restored and as promptly as possible [to] do so without danger to its nationals. Japan reiterated a desire to find a pacific settlement by direct negotiations between the two Governments. In view of the present amelioration the Japanese Government considers that this plan of direct negotiations shall be taken up again and it believes that the Council should not risk a premature intervention, but having initiated a pacific settlement should respect the wishes of one of the parties as to the method.
[Page 73]With respect to policy the Chinese position was: China denied the Japanese statement that a Chinese Minister of State had suggested direct negotiations and read a telegram in support of this contention stating that the Chinese Minister in question, T. V. Soong, had replied to the Japanese Consul General on September 22nd that the invasion of Chinese territory “made absolutely impossible any direct negotiations.” The Chinese representative insisted this position is maintained. He declared that China places herself without reserve in the hands of the Council, will follow its recommendations and is ready to assume full responsibility for the protection of life and property in the territory now occupied by Japanese troops. China renewed her request for the appointment of a commission composed of neutrals designated by the Council to report upon the withdrawal of the troops to the Council; China suggests that the Council should inform the Japanese Government that unless it proceeds immediately to this withdrawal it will violate obligations contracted under paragraph 1 article 11 of the Covenant. The possibility of invoking article 15 of the Covenant was also mentioned.
When the Chinese and Japanese representatives had concluded Cecil spoke in substance as follows: So far the Council has taken up the matter under article 11 under which the Council is directed to take measures to safeguard peace. The settlement of the question or judgment upon the action of either party is under article 11 not the duty of the Council. The Japanese have declared that the troops are being withdrawn and the Chinese representative has not questioned their declaration. This withdrawal as soon as possible is an indispensable provision for preserving peace. The primary duty of the Council was to preserve peace and it has done it.
The President of the Council then read a statement declaring in substance that in view of the withdrawal of Japanese troops and if efforts are continued to effect an appeasement the Council can hope for a satisfactory settlement. Meanwhile the Council counts upon the firm willingness of both parties not to aggravate the situation and appeals to the Japanese Government to withdraw as rapidly as possible the troops to within the railroad zone. It notes the assurance of China regarding the protection of Japanese life and property. The Council desires to be kept informed of the measures taken by both parties responsive to this appeal which has just been addressed to them.