711.00 Statement July 16, 1937/238
The Chargé in the Union of South Africa (Russell) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 3.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s cipher Instructions of July 22, 6 p.m., and August 4, 1 p.m., requesting this Legation to obtain and forward to the Department the comments of the Minister of External Affairs of the Union of South Africa, regarding [Page 758] the principles set forth in the statement of the Honorable Cordell Hull on July 16, 1937, as carried in Radio Bulletin No. 164, and also to the Legation’s Despatch No. 1220, dated July 30, 1937,97 entitled: “General Hertzog’s views on American Foreign Policy”.
I take pleasure in reporting to the Department that at 10 a.m. Friday, August 6, I called on General Hertzog, Premier of the Union of South Africa, and Minister of External Affairs, by appointment, to receive his comments and observations on the statement of the above principles which had been handed to the Union Department of External Affairs on July 27. After a short conversation General Hertzog handed to me his written statement of his observations on the principles enunciated by the Honorable Cordell Hull on July 16. This statement was an absolute confirmation of our conversation at the interview, and of that of the interview of July 27, except that he verbally stressed, in addition, the importance of international trade agreements, involving the lowering, or removal of excessive trade barriers and frankly advocated sacrifices, if necessary, on the part of Great Britain and of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations in connection with trade agreements with the United States, as he considered that the successful negotiation of such agreements would be one of the greatest steps toward international peace.
I have today cabled to the Department,98 stating that General Hertzog fully agrees with the principles enunciated by the Honorable Cordell Hull, and asking instructions as to forwarding by cable the full text of the former’s statement, in view of its length and cost.
The statement in question is as follows:
“The statement of foreign policy by Mr. Cordell Hull in every respect conforms with the views held and policy adopted from time to time by the Government of the Union, for the purpose of defining its own attitude towards other states and indicating the principles of conduct which it expects to be observed by them in their dealings with the Union.
I, therefore, heartily approve of the statement of policy by the Secretary of State, so far as the Union is concerned under present circumstances.
I say: under present circumstances, for I cannot help feeling that if the Union had been in the position of a state laboring under wrongs confirmed or perpetuated by agreement at the point of the bayonet, such agreement could have little claim to any degree of sanctity; and certainly to none when the agreement had been obtained in a manner violating the established usage of war, or contrary to the dictates of international conscience. Before such an agreement can be accepted as enjoying the principle of the sanctity of treaties there should, it seems to me, first be an equitable measure of redress purifying it of the excesses resulting therefrom. In other words, a revision of the provisions of such an agreement could well [Page 759] be insisted upon by the state wronged prior to its approval of the principle of the sanctity of treaties.
If this view is correct, Mr. Hull’s advocacy of faithful observance of international agreements would require qualification of a restrictive nature.”
Both in the letter transmitting the above written statement and in the conversation of August 6, General Hertzog requested me to convey to the Honorable Cordell Hull his very sincere regards, together with his deep appreciation of the feeling which prompted the Secretary of State to submit to him, for consideration, his statement on foreign policy.
Respectfully yours,