793.94 Commission/841: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 24—3:36 p.m.]
58. Consulate’s No. 57, February 24, 2 p.m.28 The following are the chief points in the consideration of the Sino-Japanese dispute in the meeting of the special assembly this morning.
1. President Hymans announced an addendum to the draft report as follows: Pertinent portion of paragraph [part] 4, section 2, paragraph B, subparagraph 3, now reads:
“The Assembly hereby invites the Governments of Germany, Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Czechoslovakia and Turkey each to appoint a new committee [a member of the committee]”
2. Hymans made an opening statement which included the following declaration on behalf of the Committee of Nineteen (Wilson’s 119, February 21, 7 p.m.29).
“All the considerations set forth by the Japanese delegation have been carefully weighed by the Committee of Nineteen during its discussions. The Committee does not desire to make any change in the draft report which it has submitted to the Assembly.”
Hymans also announced that as the draft report represented the unanimous opinion of the delegates on the Committee of Nineteen these delegates had decided not to take part in the present discussion.
3. Yen discussed in detail the draft report stressing various elements but adducing nothing new. He concluded by declaring that acting under instructions from his Government “upon the adoption by the Assembly of the report the Chinese delegation will inform the Secretary General of the League that the Chinese Government accepts without reserve the recommendations which the report contains.” He then stated: “For Japan as for China the only reservation is the one mentioned in the report. If, however, Japan should not accept but should reject the report and its recommendations the rights of China as a party complying under paragraph 6 of article No. 15 remain wholly unaffected.”
4. Matsuoka declared that Japan could not accept the draft report. Then in a forceful speech he appealed to the Assembly not to accept the draft report basing his contention on:
- (1)
- The special historical and present situation in Manchuria was not sufficiently understood by the members of the Assembly for them to pronounce a competent opinion;
- (2)
- The disorganized status of China rendered the recommendations inapplicable and their carrying out impossible, in particular that no mere technical assistance to China would suffice to restore order, that under present conditions no great nations would be willing to participate in a really effective international control and he questioned whether China would herself agree to an adequate international control.
5. The delegates of Venezuela, Canada and Lithuania, made short speeches which dwelt chiefly upon the obligation of League states to maintain the sanctity of treaties. The only striking statement was that of the Lithuanian representative who in conclusion expressed the hope that League action in this matter would be maintained and not suffer the fate of the Vilna affair.
[Page 207]6. Hymans then read the paragraphs of article No. 15 pertinent to the taking of a vote on the report notably paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. The Assembly proceeded to a roll call vote with the following result:
- (1)
- Number of states voting 44;
- (2)
- number of states voting affirmatively (including all 12 Council members other man the parties to the dispute) and including China 42;
- (3)
- number of states voting negatively 1, Japan;
- (4)
- states present but abstaining 1, Siam;
- (5)
- states absent, 10, as follows: Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq, Liberia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador.30
Hymans then announced that under the applicable procedure the report was unanimously adopted by the Assembly.
7. Hymans pointed out the obligations of League members under article 12, paragraph 1, and article 15, paragraph 6.
He continued by stating that the recommendations of the report are not executory as an arbitral award is executory but that they remain as “an offer of collaboration for the settlement of the dispute.”
8. Matsuoka made a “final declaration” in which he expressed the profound [regret] and disappointment of the Japanese delegation at the result of the Assembly’s vote. He concluded in the following terms:
“The Japanese now find themselves compelled to conclude that Japan and the other members of the League entertain different views on the manner to achieve peace in the Far East and the Japanese Government are obliged to feel that they have now reached the limit of their endeavors to cooperate with the League of Nations in reference to the Sino-Japanese differences.
The Japanese Government will however make their utmost efforts for the establishment of peace in the Far East and for the maintenance and strengthening of good and cordial relations with other powers. I need hardly add that the Japanese Government persist in their desire to contribute to human welfare and will continue their policy of cooperating in all sincerity in the work dedicated to world peace.”
9. No statement was made by the Japanese representative respecting Japan’s future status vis-à-vis the League except as may be remotely [Page 208] inferred from the foregoing citation. Immediately following the end of Matsuoka’s declaration however the entire Japanese delegation left the Assembly room.
10. The Assembly adjourned until 5 p.m. this afternoon.
- It reported: “Special Assembly has just adopted report in Sino-Japanese [dispute?] under article 15. paragraph 4” (793.94 Commission/835.) For text of the report, see League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supp. No. 112, p. 56.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Corrected by telegram No. 63, February 27,
5 p.m., from the Consul at Geneva, as follows: ↩
“States absent, 11. Add Dominican Republic. Number of states members of the League but who have not accredited a representative to the Special Assembly, 2, Argentina and Honduras.
“This will indicate the action of the total 57 members of the League.” (793.94 Commission/855)