Statement Made by Norman H. Davis at Brussels on November 13, 193759
The following statement was issued today by Norman H. Davis, American delegate to the Nine Power Conference, at Brussels, Belgium:
“I feel that this occasion calls for some general observations. If we do not from time to time pause in our consideration of the particular and reiterate the principles that guide us in their relation to the general, then the impression may gain ground that our policies have less depth or purpose than is in fact the case. We are in this Conference very much concerned with peace in one important area of the world, the Far East. It is of vital importance that peace be restored there, not merely for the two participants in the present conflict, but for the world at large. The cost in human misery is vast and the material losses are heavy. But even greater is the loss to world confidence and the undermining of stability and security, if the integrity of certain principles which we hold sacred is not preserved. Through a period of centuries, the world has developed a system of international law which is the basis of international morality and conduct and which provides for fair dealing among nations, just as private relationships are based on codes of fair dealing among individuals. When observed, this gives a sense of security to nations, enables them to develop their own civilization in their own way, to choose the form of government they desire, and to know that they [Page 409] are free to solve their internal problems without the intervention of outside powers. This is essential for orderly progress in the world.
“International law has been written into, and is based upon, a series of international agreements, and the cornerstone of progress is the observance of undertakings solemnly given and solemnly received between nations. Change is possible—more than that, it is often desirable—but is legitimate only if carried out by peaceful methods and by mutual agreement. The question we are considering here, in its final analysis, is whether international relations shall be determined by arbitrary force or by law and by respect for international treaties. In fact that seems to be the greatest issue that faces the world today and is one of the most momentous problems that mankind has been called upon to solve. As President Roosevelt expressed it the other day: ‘Those who cherish their freedom and recognize and respect the equal right of their neighbors to be free and live in peace, must work together for the triumph of law and moral principles in order that peace, justice, and confidence may prevail in the world.’59a If the conception of change by violence should prevail we should be faced by international anarchy. Only the concept of respect for law and treaty will give us a world that is secure and wherein good will and confidence can exist, and observance of the pledged word is the one immutable foundation on which the structure of world peace can be built. And if today I have reiterated this in simple language, it is to emphasize the conviction which is ours, that on no other basis can an equitable and lasting solution of the Sino-Japanese conflict be found, and in no other way can a just peace be reestablished and be maintained in the Far East.
“To come to the specific problem with which we are here immediately concerned: Japan was invited to attend the Conference, where we would have welcomed from her a full explanation of her side of the case as to the incidents which led to the outbreak of hostilities as well as the underlying causes of the conflict. She declined. Going one stage further, and in a desire to be considerate of every possible susceptibility, we asked Japan whether she would be disposed to depute a representative to exchange views with the representatives of a small number of powers to be chosen for that purpose by the Conference. Such an exchange of views would have taken place within the framework of the Nine Power Treaty and in conformity with its provisions; its aims would have been to throw further light on the various points under discussion and to facilitate a settlement of the conflict. Again Japan’s reply is negative. Had Japan accepted, I am confident that we could have been most helpful to her as well as to China, which it was and is our most sincere desire to be.
[Page 410]“I am convinced that the only just and durable solution would be a settlement by voluntary, peaceful agreement, which would result in good will and confidence and in mutually beneficial commercial relations. It would of course have been desirable had China and Japan been able to compose their difficulties by peaceful negotiation without resort to armed conflict. Unfortunately, however, they did not do so, and their failure created a situation in which the rights and interests of other powers became involved and which has made still more difficult a peaceful and mutually acceptable settlement by direct negotiation.
“From the standpoint of observance of the letter and spirit of treaties to which she voluntarily put her name, from the standpoint of her material self-interest, from the standpoint of world peace and progress and international good will, it would seem that there are compelling reasons why Japan should cooperate in our work. We hope that Japan may still see its way clear to doing so.”