Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1929, Volume II

861.77 Chinese Eastern/84: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray)⁴

Washington, July 22, 1929—7 p.m.

241. My No. 240, July 22, 2 p.m.⁵

1. On July 20 the French Ambassador informed the Department orally that on the same day the Chinese Minister had called upon him and asked whether he represented Soviet Russia in Washington. The French Ambassador replied that he did not represent Soviet Russia but that of course Mr. Briand and he, having contacts with the Soviet Government, were ready to communicate any information which the American Government might desire to send to the Soviet Government. The Chinese Minister asked what statements the Soviet Government had made. The Ambassador replied that he did not know; but that Mr. Briand had called in the Russian Ambassador in Paris. The French Ambassador referred to the published statement attributed to the Russian Government and said he personally thought the Russians had made a favorable impression upon world opinion. The Ambassador observed that he knew that the Chinese had stated that the Russians had engaged in propaganda in China but that this was hardly a reason for seizing the property of the Soviet Government. The Chinese Minister replied that China had not seized the railway, all she had done was to replace Russian with Chinese employees. The Chinese Minister asked the Ambassador what would be the next step and whether the Russians would be willing to arbitrate. The Ambassador replied that if there were no war there must be some sort of arbitration. The Minister referred to the readiness of the Chinese Government to send a representative to discuss matters with the Soviet Government and stated that this was impossible because the Soviet Government had severed relations with China and had broken off railway communications. The Ambassador stated to the Chinese Minister that the latter well knew it was always possible under such circumstances to use a middleman and he said he was certain that Mr. Briand or Mr. Stimson would consent to facilitate the transmission of any moderating message or suggestions which the Chinese Government might care to send. The Ambassador said that he told the Chinese Minister that he felt the Soviet Government had made a soft reply to the Chinese and that he felt that the Chinese should endeavor to reply in kind. He felt sure Mr. Briand would be happy to transmit anything the Chinese might care to send. The Ambassador informed the Department that the Chinese Minister seemed pleased with the interview. The last words of the Ambassador to the Minister were that from the international point of view China was in a bad position since it would appear that China had seized property belonging to Soviet Russia.

2. In my interview with the French Ambassador on July 18 I asked that after his Government, as I hoped, had made representations to the Soviet Government he would report them to me. I have not been informed precisely what representations were made but on July 20 the Ambassador handed to the Department a translation of a telegram received from his Government the same day.⁶ The telegram stated, in effect, that while the French Minister for Foreign Affairs was without detailed information concerning the claims made by China to justify the seizure of the Chinese Eastern Railway he thought that the real desire of the Chinese was to seize the receipts and administration of the railway and that the communist propaganda issue was a pretext. Apparently the Nationalists are of the opinion that this incident will allow China to break her other international obligations. Through the Washington Conference Resolutions 12 and 13 the question of the administration of the Chinese Eastern Railway acquired an international character. In May 1924, when China by a bilateral act with Russia modified the status of the railway, representations were made to the Chinese Government by the interested governments⁷ calling attention to the necessity that no change should be made unless full protection were accorded to the rights of all creditors and all other interested parties. Today China is assuming to change the status of the railway not only through a bilateral act but by pure seizure. It would seem, under the circumstances, that recourse might be had again to the steps taken in 1924. The telegram to the French Ambassador ended with the observation that the motives which justified the action taken in 1924 supported the argument advanced by the Secretary of State that both parties to the present dispute be reminded of their obligations under the General Pact for the Renunciation of War to adopt conciliatory means for the solution of a question in which international interests are involved.

3. The French Ambassador said that he had received information from his Government to the effect that on July 18 Mr. Karakhan informed the French Ambassador in Moscow that the Soviet authorities had been obliged to take military measures along the Manchurian frontier because of the presence there of armed Russian émigrés but Mr. Karakhan stated positively that his Government was counting upon the economic and political effects of the rupture and it did not intend to resort to force. The order of the Soviet Government to stop traffic at the Manchurian frontier was given during the night of July 17. The opinion of the French Ambassador at Moscow was that the possibility of armed conflict in Manchuria might not be excluded if the Soviet Government were assured of military superiority in that region.

4. The French Ambassador stated that in an interview between the French Ambassador at Tokyo and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs the latter said he did not feel there was any danger of war between China and Russia. When asked whether Japan would continue the policy of the Tanaka Government if trouble broke out in Manchuria, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs is said to have answered that the Japanese Government would look upon such trouble as a purely Chinese-Russian matter and would remain neutral. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said that, provided, of course, the Chinese authorities guaranteed protection for Japanese rights, the Japanese Government would have no objection to the transfer of the Chinese Eastern Railway from Russian to Chinese control. The French Ambassador at Tokyo is reported to have stated that he did not find members of the Japanese Foreign Office and of the Privy Council perturbed over the situation. They recognized that in Manchuria and in China generally Russian influence had degenerated considerably during the past few years. The Japanese Government was said to have received information from the Japanese Ambassador at Moscow that the Soviet Government had informed him on July 12 that the Soviet Government had no intention of taking forceful measures in Manchuria. The French Ambassador at Tokyo received the impression that the Japanese Government would follow a “watchful waiting” policy in regard to the present dispute.

5. On July 21 the British Ambassador wrote me⁸ referring to our conversation on July 18 and stating that he had received a telegram from the British Minister for Foreign Affairs asking the Ambassador to inform me that the British Government warmly sympathized with the motives which have inspired the American Government in the action which it is taking with the object of averting untoward developments in the Far East and that the British Government associates itself entirely with the representations which Mr. Briand has made to both parties to the present dispute. He added that the British Government is informing the French Government to this effect.

Repeat to Tokyo No. 69.

Stimson

4. See last paragraph for instructions to repeat to Tokyo. The same, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to Paris as No. 237, for repetition to Rome as No. 51 and to London as No. 184.
5. Not printed; it instructed the Minister to repeat telegram No. 237, July 19, to the Embassy in Japan.
6. Not found in Department files.
7. See Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. i, pp. 487 ff.
8. Communication not found in Department files.