Office of the Historian

793.94/5043: Telegram

The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Acting Secretary of State

Shanghai, April 13, 1932—8 p.m.
[Received April 13—11:35 a.m.]

My April 12, 5 p.m. At the suggestion of British Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lampson asked us to meet today and we agreed to send [Page 690] following message identically to our several Governments, that is, United States, Great Britain, France and Italy:

“Situation of conference is now as follows:

(1)
Negotiations under resolution of March 4 have reached following impasse.
(2)
Difficulty has arisen under annex 1 of draft agreement in that Japanese are demanding that Chinese define their positions south of Soochow Creek and east of Whangpoo River. Chinese are willing only to define positions north of Soochow Creek, i.e., in areas directly involved in recent hostilities.
(3)
Representatives of participating friendly powers feel that Japanese are protected in this connection by article 1 which provides for cessation of hostilities around Shanghai including all and every form of hostilities, and they feel that Japanese should not press this point which should be capable of adjustment if main difficulty can be overcome.
(4)
Main difficulty is that Chinese insist on a clearly defined time limit within which Japanese withdrawal into the International Settlement and the extra-Settlement roads of the Hongkew district should be completed in accordance with first sentence of article No. 3. Japanese have made it abundantly clear in the course of the negotiations that they are not prepared to fix any such time limit maintaining that the reduction of their troops to such numbers as appears absolutely necessary in Settlement, et cetera, must depend on restoration of normal conditions of security. Foreign representatives understand however that Japanese would be willing to make a declaration to the effect that ‘As soon as local condition[s] in and around Shanghai return to normal—and they hope that conditions will have so returned within 6 months or sooner—the Japanese troops will be further withdrawn to the International Settlement and the extra-Settlement roads in the Hongkew district as before the incident of January 28, 1932.’
(5)
Foreign representatives feel that they have done all they can to bring the two sides together and that if any agreement is to be reached China should either accept the above declaration or else sign the agreement as it stands relying upon definite undertaking in regard to withdrawal contained in the first sentence of article No. 3.
(6)
The foreign representatives submit that the Assembly might help towards a speedy conclusion of the agreement as already drafted if the Assembly would record a pronouncement that they have noted the results so far of China negotiations carried on in accepting the resolution of March 4 and that they interpret the first sentence of article 3 as clearly meaning that the Japanese Government thereby undertake to complete at an early date the withdrawal of the Japanese troops.”

Johnson