793.94/4309: Telegram
The Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 19—10:55 a.m.]
75. Two important statements were made in Parliament yesterday on the Far Eastern situation.
1. Lord Ponsonby (Labor) stated in House of Lords British obligations seemed to fall into four categories:
- (a)
- defense of our nationals and safeguarding of trade positions;
- (b)
- partners in the preservation of neutrality of the International Settlement;
- (c)
- as cosignatories of the Nine-Power Treaty and the Peace Pact of 1928;
- (d)
- special obligations as defenders of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Regarding (a), Ponsonby stated the Government appeared to have paid very special attention. He continued:
“The British Government did not support the United States in their note to Japan of January 7th but addressed a communiqué merely pressing on Japan that they should observe the open-door policy. That made a very bad impression because it looked as if the British Government at that time thought that the foremost interest was British trade in China and that they ignored the far more serious matters mentioned in the United States’ note. That was a very serious error. Every opportunity should have been taken to cooperate as closely as possible [Page 389] with the United States. The use of the Japanese sector of the International Settlement as a base for the Japanese operations had placed the Settlement in a very dangerous position.”
Ponsonby pointed out nonobservance of the League Covenant must destroy its authority, and violation of collective treaties by any one signatory destroy their validity. He added:
“The very serious situation in Shanghai was entirely the consequence of the weakness of the League of Nations in handling the situation in Manchuria (…)66 the latitude that was allowed to Japan in her action in Manchuria encouraged her to believe that she could go a great deal further in the present situation in Shanghai (…)66 when they recalled the attitude of the Japanese Government in their reply to the five points presented to them on February 4th by the British and American Governments they might perhaps feel some doubt as to what their reply to this very formal and strong appeal from the 12 League powers (just issued) would be.”
In conclusion Ponsonby stated he hoped the Government would not relax its endeavors and that no attempt would be made to bargain with the Japanese Government by allowing them a free hand to do what they liked in Manchuria providing they relaxed their stranglehold on Shanghai.
Lord Hailsham, Secretary of State for War (Conservative) replied for the Government. Summarizing the Government activities he stated inter alia:
“Anything which tends to throw doubt on the sanctity of the Covenant or to bring the League of Nations into disrepute must necessarily be a matter of the gravest importance to this Government and to the people of this country.”
Lord Hailsham continued:
“While carrying on these efforts in the Far East the Government have throughout been keeping in the closest possible touch with the Government of the United States and with the friendly powers which form our colleagues on the Council and in the Assembly of the League of Nations.
The position of His Majesty’s Government was not quite the same as that of the Government of the United States. Great Britain was a member of the League of Nations but the United States was not. The British Government had throughout this unhappy controversy been working in close touch with the United States Government. So far as he had heard there had been no suggestion of complaint or criticism from the United States as to any action or inaction on the part of His Majesty’s Government and it would not be wise or proper if His Majesty’s Government took any action which would seem to separate it from the other members of the League of Nations and identify it with [Page 390] the United States in any form of opposition to the other members of the League. The efforts of this country had rather been to keep in the friendliest touch with the United States and act in every way in collaboration with that Government. At the same time we must stand by our duty to the League. It would be improper and dangerous automatically to put into operation the provisions of article 16 of the Covenant of the League. Such a course involved the prejudging of the issue which the Council of the League and the Assembly of the League had to determine; namely, which was the nation which was to blame.”
Lord Hailsham continued:
“Whether the matter falls to be determined by the Assembly or is determined by the Council, the representatives of this country will form a part of the tribunal and His Majesty’s Government would regard it as a breach of their duty if they were to express any opinion or come to any decision as to the responsibility for the situation which has arisen until they have heard the contentions of both sides and investigated the evidence which will be laid before them by one side or the other. I want to make it quite clear that the appeal which has been sent to Japan by 12 members of the League does not involve any condemnation of Japan; it does not involve the uttering of anything in the nature of a threat to Japan. It is, as it purports to be, merely an appeal by the friendly neighbors and collaborators with Japan in the work of the League of Nations.”
2. In the House of Commons Sir John Simon stated in reply to a question as to the killing of the two British naval ratings on duty at Shanghai:
“From the direction of the shells it seems almost certain they were fired from Chinese guns. His Majesty’s Minister has accordingly addressed a note to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs calling his attention to these facts and requesting that strict instructions be issued to the Chinese military authorities with a view to preventing any possible recurrence of such incidents and reminding His Excellency that His Majesty’s Government must in this unfortunate conflict between China and Japan hold each side responsible for any loss to British life and property that may be caused by their respective armed forces.” (…)67
“We have information from Shanghai that a meeting was to take place this morning between representatives of the Chinese and Japanese military authorities. (…)67 The meeting was largely brought about through the efforts or our own Minister, Sir Miles Lampson.”
Official texts of these two statements by pouch.
My urgent cable 76, February 19, noon, follows.