711.933/156: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (MacMurray)
342. Reference your 900, October 17, 9 p.m., and 901, October 17, 10 p.m. A comparison of the last paragraphs in your note dated August 10 to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs and in the British Minister’s note of the same date indicates that, though the last sentence in the British Minister’s present proposal as a basis for the reply to Dr. C. T. Wang’s note dated September 5 may suffice for the British reply, that sentence would not suffice for the American reply. In the American note of August 10, the United States did not predicate its willingness to take part in negotiations upon the condition that China should first communicate proposals to the United States.
I do not think any useful purpose will be served by the United States laying down such a condition. Complete abolition of extraterritorial jurisdiction has been asked by the Chinese Government. Proposals to modify this position cannot be expected to emanate from Chinese official sources. A demand that they make such proposals is the equivalent of declining to negotiate. The United States Government has declared its willingness and is willing to negotiate. If at all possible, I deem it desirable for negotiations to be in progress prior to January 1, 1930. It is, I think, highly desirable for the United States so to handle this matter that, should the Chinese denounce the treaties or parts of them, no chargé can be made that the United States Government was unwilling or seemed to be unwilling for full cooperation with the Chinese with a view to disposal of this question by agreement.
The views you express in your 901 I have carefully considered. In the light thereof, and with reference to paragraph 2 of my 329, October 11, 11 a.m., I offer as a substitute for the last sentence the following:6
“However, assuming that the Chinese Government has not failed to take into consideration the main points set forth in my note of August 10, and desiring as far as possible to meet the wishes of the Chinese Government, my Government is prepared to enter into negotiations, when convenient to the Chinese Government, which shall have as their object, as indicated in the concluding paragraph of my note of August 10, ‘the devising of a method for the gradual relinquishment of extraterritorial rights (and so forth, your note to quote to the end of note of August 10).’”
I withdraw my instruction regarding a separate communication, and I shall let the Chinese make the next move. However, when Dr. C. C. Wu returns, presumably soon, from Europe, I imagine he will request me to start negotiations; and I do not desire to decline. I wish, in fact, already to be on record with an express indication of the United States Government’s willingness to proceed. In this matter I am not unwilling to cooperate with the other powers concerned. I would prefer cooperation. As to independent action, however, this has already been taken by several powers. A desire of the British and Dutch Governments to employ dilatory tactics is suggested by the tenor of the drafts which the Senior Minister and the British Minister have tentatively submitted. I have no wish for delay and am, therefore, obliged to indicate that I am willing to proceed independently. In the note dated August 10 from you, I not only made a commitment but also gave sufficient notice of this attitude. I do not intend encouraging the Chinese to expect my assent to unconditional and immediate abolition of extraterritoriality. If the action I take is thus misrepresented by the Chinese, I shall have the record to prove the facts.
This you may explain to your colleagues; and you will proceed to prepare your note. I should like you to reply to Dr. Wang at a reasonably early date.
- Quotation not paraphrased.↩