793.94 Commission/779: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Wilson), at Geneva
65. Your 95, February 6, 9 p.m. and 96, February 7, 2 p.m. I am of course greatly gratified over these evidences of tendency in League discussion.
[Page 153]Comparing your telegram and the press reports it is not clear what features, if any, have been definitely decided upon as distinguished from those which continue merely under discussion. Press reports this morning indicate or imply definite decisions and/or agreements. For instance, Streit,74 under date line Geneva February 6, states that the Committee of Nineteen “unanimously decided this morning to recommend not merely non-recognition of Manchoukuo in law, but non-cooperation with it in practice. It also unanimously agreed to recommend in Secretary Stimson’s words that the present situation in Manchuria was ‘incompatible’ with the League Covenant, the Pact of Paris and the Nine Power Treaty.” I assume that these are inexact over-statements. The maximum of exact specification that you may be able to give us either now or as deliberations proceed will be additionally helpful.
I am still maintaining the attitude that it is not for this Government to attempt to guide or to influence or prejudice the League in its deliberations with regard to the course which it should follow under its Covenant. I am therefore resisting importunities for comment and implied opportunities to volunteer suggestions.
For your guidance, but not for an initiative on your part, I am impressed with the views expressed by Eden, Massigli and Beneš, as reported in your telegram. There need be no doubt whether this Government would give support to action by the League emphasizing the principle and intention of non-recognition. The idea of non-cooperation is in the opinion of the present Administration a corollary and it is our belief that it will be so with the new Administration. We have followed that idea in connection with all problems so far presented by the claim of the existing authorities in Manchuria or of others on their behalf that they are functioning as the government of an independent state. It seems to me wise—and I would hope—that the League should not consult the United States and Russia until after it has taken its own action under Article 15; and that it should take that action independently of what may later devolve upon it under Article 16. However, in regard to sanctions, the present administration in the United States has made it clear that it is opposed in principle to the idea of using military or economic sanctions. What the attitude of the new administration on that point may be is a matter for that administration to decide after it assumes office. This Department has taken the position from the beginning of making no commitment on the subject of sanctions.
For your further information, I feel greatly encouraged over the British and French attitude as indicated in views expressed by Eden and Massigli. You may say to Eden that I concur in the view that [Page 154] it is essential that the League and the United States keep abreast in this matter and that it appears to me that the course which he apparently now has in mind, if consummated, would bring them abreast of us; I approve of what you said to him, but I would suggest that you avoid entirely the giving of any opinions with regard to positive sanctions except and unless in the sense indicated above.
- Clarence Streit, New York Times correspondent at Geneva.↩