893.113/1161: Telegram
The Minister in China (MacMurray) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 8—11:20 a.m.]
94. Your telegram No. 42, January 31, 11 a.m.
1. Cancellation of the 1919 arms embargo81 and of the corollary agreement as to withholding naval assistance82 (see Department’s telegram number 270, November 23 [22], 5 p.m., 192283) was yesterday the subject of informal preliminary discussion among the British, Dutch and Italian Ministers, French and Japanese Chargés and myself. British Minister stated position of his Government as described in my telegram number 68, January 30, 7 p.m. The others, although without instructions from their Governments, were inclined to favor cancellation of the embargo, although Japanese Chargé d’Affaires’ assent was somewhat qualified by a doubt whether it would not be premature to take such action until the outcome of the recent disbandment conference at Nanking had demonstrated whether unity is likely to be maintained.
2. British Minister presented for consideration a draft of note to be addressed to the Nationalist Government by the Senior Minister in behalf of the representatives of the powers party to the 1919 agreement reviewing the status of the agreement and stating that:
“The Governments of the Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Spain, the United States, France, Great Britain, its possessions, Japan and Portugal, having reviewed the arms embargo agreement of May 5, 1919, in the light of the changed situation resulting from the establishment of the National Government, consider that there is no longer any reason for the continuance of that agreement and have decided to regard it as canceled.”
With regard to the naval agreement he suggested the following draft resolution:
“The representatives of Germany, Belgium, the British Empire, the United States of America, France, Italy, Japan, and the Netherlands, have decided in view of the establishment of the National Government of China to regard as canceled the understanding relative to the withholding of naval assistance from China which was proposed to the D[iplomatic] B[ody] by the United States Minister in a memorandum dated January 25, 1923,84 and subsequently accepted on various dates by their respective Governments.”
3. In view of the present sensitiveness of public opinion in the various countries in regard to any appearance of naval rivalry, I offered my personal observations along the following line: With the doing away of the naval agreement it might be expected that there would again be competition among the various interested nationalities for the supply of ships to the Chinese Navy. It would appear regrettable if this competition were to give rise to such international jealousies, suspicions and intrigues for influence in the development of the Chinese Navy as had occurred during a period of some years following the Bethlehem contract.85 The danger of such embitterment of competition might be minimized if there were no occasion for any nationality to suspect the existence of secret arrangements to the benefit of any other. Insofar as concerns the construction of ships, article No. 16 of the Washington Treaty limiting naval armament86 provides for publicity which would tend to be reassuring. Insofar as concerns the furnishing of technical assistance through the sending of naval missions it might be thought worth while to consider whether it would be helpful to have an understanding among, at any rate, the principal naval powers that they would promptly inform each other upon the making of any such arrangement for the technical assistance to the Chinese Navy. Do you consider such an arrangement feasible and desirable?
- See note of May 5, 1919, from the Senior Minister in China to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. i, p. 670.↩
- ibid., 1922, vol. i, pp. 745 ff., and 1923, vol. i, pp. 617 ff.↩
- ibid., 1922, vol. i, p. 761.↩
- Not printed; but see telegrams No. 262, November 11, 1922, and No. 15, January 24, 1923, to the Minister in China, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 759, and ibid., 1923, vol. i, p. 617.↩
- Contract of 1911 not printed; see footnote 85, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 746.↩
- ibid., pp. 247, 252.↩