793.94 Commission/831: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
123. The Committee of Nineteen met this afternoon to consider the procedure for tomorrow’s Assembly. Following is resume of report given me confidentially by Sweetser.
Hymans reported a visit from Matsuoka who said that the Japanese declaration would be on the lines of their recent “observations” (see my 119, February 21, 7 p.m.19). Hymans, therefore, suggested to the Committee that as these had been widely distributed it would be well for him at the opening of the session to say that the Committee had given due consideration to all the points raised but that it had no change to suggest in its report.
Yen also had seen him this morning stating that the Chinese did not at this moment intend to speak of the actual vote on the report. In these circumstances Hymans would open the meeting with a short [Page 199] statement, Matsuoka would then make his statement and several other members of the Assembly—the representatives of Venezuela, Lithuania and Canada—would also make declarations.
These three had said they felt that as they had not sat on the Nineteen it was their duty to express their views but that all had promised to be brief. Hymans had pointed out to them that the Nineteen felt it would be more dignified if no one at all spoke as in this way also any differences of interpretation or proportion could be avoided. In short he had used every argument possible to keep them from speaking but unsuccessfully.
Hymans felt that after these declarations he as President of the Assembly should make a further short statement summarizing the views of the Nineteen. He would then put the report to the vote by roll call with all states present having the right to vote but with the votes of the parties concerned not counted.
After the vote Hymans would make a further declaration recalling the obligations under paragraph 6 of article 15 of the Covenant that states members of the League should not go to war with a party conforming to the report and also to article 12 that recourse to war should not take place within 3 months of the publication of the report. He would then make a short statement on the political consequences of the report pointing out that it was not an arbitral judgment but showed the Assembly’s desire to cooperate with the parties for a solution. He would express regret that the offer appeared unreasonable to one of the parties, that that party was unable to accept it and that therefore it was isolating itself from the other nations. He would then express the hope that no irreparable action would be taken.
Hymans then raised the question in the Committee as to whether after the adoption of the report the Assembly would continue to be concerned with the affair or not and alternatively whether the Committee of Nineteen would continue.
Drummond explained that there were two contradictory schools of thought as to the further play of the Covenant in such circumstances and that there was good legal opinion on both sides even among his own advisers. One view held that the Covenant is in fact a single whole and that if its whole procedure has been pursued clear through article 15 it is thus exhausted and offers no further procedure of any sort. By this view, to adopt further action under the Covenant would be unnecessary. The second view, a much broader one, was that even if the League had exhausted the possibilities of article 15 it must still watch over the situation under paragraph 3 of article 3 of the Covenant which gives the League a general responsibility for the maintenance of world peace. Drummond himself felt that [Page 200] the second interpretation was the far more reasonable one and therefore submitted a draft resolution based upon this view.
Hymans interpreted this draft resolution to mean that the Committee of Nineteen as now constituted will disappear and be replaced by a new committee with wide advisory functions. The United States and Russia would be invited to associate with that committee and the Assembly itself would remain in being subject to call. Drummond added that it did not seem the wisest political course to maintain the Nineteen as such. The Committee was indeed hoping for collaboration with the United States which he thought would be more difficult if the Nineteen with all its background and commitments was the agency of assisting. He had therefore foreseen a new committee which would include all the Nineteen plus Canada and Holland and which therefore in effect would be very much the same thing. Nevertheless he thought that if something new were created American cooperation would be facilitated.
Madariaga was surprised at this interpretation. He would not have thought that a mere change of name would have made any great difference. He felt it was desirable for other reasons to go on with the Nineteen.
Motta, while thinking it impossible to admit that the League had exhausted all its possibilities in the dispute, felt that the Assembly must continue in being and that if it did so the Nineteen should also continue. He was entirely favorable to considering the susceptibilities of nonmember states, but wondered if suggestions made were not pushing those susceptibilities too far. After all was there any reason to think that the United States would not cooperate with 19 members but would cooperate with 21? Hymans recalled the March 11 resolution creating the Committee of Nineteen and thought that under its terms the Committee had fulfilled its mandate in presenting its report.
Eden suggested that the committee which had been proposed under the recommendations for negotiations might be set up as the new committee with, of course, the cooperation of the United States and Russia. But Drummond thought that if this were done the Japanese would have a real grievance in that the new committee proposed would have entirely different functions from those foreseen for the Committee of Negotiations.
Massigli felt that the question was that of practicability. Namely, was it desirable or not to create a new committee rather than to continue an old one? In his view it was of great importance to have the cooperation of the United States. If the creation of a new committee would facilitate this he was strongly for it. In any event, however, mere fact of adding Holland and Canada to the 19 would already create a new committee.
[Page 201]Drummond also inclined to the view that the mandate of the Committee of Nineteen had been fulfilled. He would not say that the United States would refuse to participate in the discussions simply because they were held through the Committee of Nineteen but he thought that it might be easier for them with a new administration just coming into office, if there were also an entirely new committee over here.
Hymans felt hesitant about any kind of a committee, averring that it would be constantly called into session, but it did not seem to him possible to avoid it as there were certain to be cases and incidents where it would be impossible for the nations not to consult, as for instance the Chinese gave notice of intention to bring up Jehol in the Assembly.
Keller stressed the need of making the situation clear to world public opinion. He fully appreciated that the creation of a new committee would have had American cooperation and he felt it otherwise necessary because that committee would in effect have a new competence and different powers.
The Secretary General then suggested a re-drafting of the resolution he had put forward to allow for the creation of a new committee which would be composed, however, of the members of the Nineteen plus the United States and Russia, Canada and Holland. The Committee accepted this compromise and this draft resolution will be put forward tomorrow in that sense. Sweetser further states that the anticipation now is that the report will be voted before noon tomorrow; that the Chinese will bring forward the Jehol matter thereafter and that the Assembly will then adjourn until the afternoon in order to create this new committee and to refer the Jehol matter to it. In these circumstances the invitation to the United States which has already been drafted will be at once despatched with a request for as early a reply as possible.