Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1933, The Far East, Volume III

893.102S/1272

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

No. 1072

Washington, May 1, 1933.

Sir: Reference is made to your despatch No. 1973 of February 24, 1933,⁹ in regard to the defense plan at Shanghai in which you comment upon certain remarks made by Consul General Cunningham in his despatch No. 8742 of February 13, 1933,⁹ transmitting to the Department a review of the activities of the Consular Body at Shanghai for the year 1932. The Department notes your observations in regard to the declarations of emergency by the Municipal Council at Shanghai and in regard to the purpose of the American armed forces at Shanghai and your conclusion that steps should be taken without delay to clear up any ambiguities with regard to the purpose of these armed forces and their use in emergencies without the Consul General’s knowledge.

In this connection the Department has reexamined with care its telegraphic instruction No. 47 of February 5, 1930, 6 p.m., to the Legation,¹⁰ in regard to the use of American armed forces in China particularly at Shanghai, (which was circularized to consular officers in China with the Legation’s circular No. 7 of February 14, 1930) and the instructions given to the Commander-in-Chief by the Navy Department on September 9, 1932,¹¹ a paraphrased copy of which is enclosed (the general nature of which was indicated in the Department’s 306, September 8, 1932, 6 p.m.,¹² and 313, September 14, 1932, noon¹³). As a result of this reexamination, the Department has reached the conclusion that these instructions cover the points you raise. By way of specific comment, however, the Department offers the following:

With regard to the question of cooperation between the municipal authorities and the Senior Consul, your attention is invited to paragraph three, sub-section 6, of the Department’s telegram of February 5, 1930, 6 p.m. referred to above, as follows:

“when the Municipal Administration believes that the general interests of the community are specially menaced in a particular case in a manner and to an extent with which the Municipal Administration cannot cope, it would seem logical that the facts be made known by that Administration to the Senior Consul and that the latter take up the problem as a matter of joint concern with the senior officers of the Foreign armed forces present;”

You will also note that the American Consul General at Shanghai, who was also Senior Consul, in his despatch to the Department, No. 8742 of February 13, 1933, page 3, states inter alia, as follows:

“The Council, in declaring the state of emergency, took into its confidence and properly acted at the instance of the military authorities who were ashore and of the consular representatives of Great Britain, Japan and the United States;” (underscoring by the Department)

Moreover, that the American Consul General at Shanghai was of the opinion that in the then developing situation the Senior Consul should be consulted is evidenced by a telegram from him to the Department of January 22, 1932, 6 p.m.,¹⁴ repeated to the Legation. In this connection reference is made also to the Department’s telegram of January 25, 1932, 6 p.m. to Shanghai,¹⁵ repeated to the Legation as the Department’s No. 25 of that date, and the Department’s telegram No. 26, January 25, 1932, midnight, to the Legation.¹⁶

On several occasions (see particularly third paragraph of your despatch under reference and paragraph one of your telegram No. 131 of January 27, 1932, 3 p.m.¹⁷) you have referred somewhat emphatically to the fact that American armed forces at Shanghai are not there for the purpose of maintaining the administrative integrity or boundaries of the International Settlement. The Department perceives no need for laying special stress on this point, as its instructions are entirely clear that American armed forces at Shanghai are there strictly for the purpose of protecting American lives and property. The Department believes that this purpose is clearly understood by responsible officers of this Department and of the Navy Department. With regard to the attitude of the Commander-in-Chief in regard to the point which you emphasize, Admiral Taylor¹⁸ stated in a radio message to the Navy Department under date September 18, 1932, a copy of which is enclosed,¹⁹ as follows: “This scheme does not bind the U. S. forces to defend the International Settlement territory as a matter of sovereignty.” With regard to the Municipal Council, the Department, in view of Mr. Stirling Fessenden’s past experience and connection with that body and notwithstanding the Consul General’s remark on page 3 of his despatch of February 13, 1933, that “The mistake seems to have been that the Council regarded the landing force as a protection for the Shanghai Municipal Council”, doubts whether the Council as a body was laboring under any misapprehension that American armed forces landed at Shanghai were there for the purpose of protecting per se the integrity or boundaries of the International Settlement. The Council had been discussing the situation with the commanders of the defense forces and with certain consuls general and what the Council presumably had in mind was that the most practicable and effective way for the American forces to protect American interests, British forces to protect British interests, French forces to protect French interests, et cetera, was not for each defense force to attempt to protect its own national interests separately but to join forces with the Council in a general plan (such a plan existed) of protecting the areas in which all their interests were intermingled. That these areas may at a given time and in a particular set of circumstances happen to correspond approximately to the areas of the International Settlement and the French Concession is a matter of coincidence.

Although American armed forces at Shanghai are not there for the purpose of maintaining the administrative integrity and boundaries of the Settlement, it may at times be the case that the practical exigencies of a given situation will dictate that those armed forces, in order to carry out their primary function of protection, cooperate with the other military contingents at Shanghai in maintaining the administrative integrity and boundaries of the International Settlement. In other words, the question of the purpose of our armed forces at Shanghai is one thing, which is predetermined, while the manner in which those forces may carry out this purpose is another matter, which must, in the nature of things, be dealt with according to the exigencies of each situation as it arises.

If, in the future, as developments requiring the consideration of a declaration of emergency arise, the Consul General at Shanghai, bearing the above in mind, keeps in close touch with the Consular Body, with the municipal authorities and with the representatives of American armed forces at Shanghai, and keeps the Legation and the Department fully informed of such developments, the Department feels that it will be possible to forestall use of American armed forces at Shanghai for purposes not in accord with the policies of this Government. If, however, you feel that any useful purpose will be served by so doing, the Department authorizes you in your discretion (a) to discuss the matter with the Commander-in-Chief of the Asiatic Fleet in the light of this instruction (a copy of which you should in that event make available to him) and of the instructions referred to therein and (b) to direct the Consul General at Shanghai to explain the American Government’s attitude and policy in this respect to his colleagues and to the appropriate authorities of the Municipal Council.

You should send a copy of this instruction to the Consul General at Shanghai for his guidance.

Very truly yours,

For the Secretary of State:

William Phillips

9. Not printed.
9. Not printed.
10. Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. ii, p. 85.
11. Ibid., 1932, vol. iv, p. 237.
12. Ibid., p. 235.
13. Ibid., p. 245.
14. Ibid., vol. iii, p. 47.
15. Ibid., p. 64.
16. Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. iii, p. 66.
17. Ibid., p. 75.
18. Admiral Montgomery M. Taylor, commander in chief, U. S. Asiatic Fleet.
19. Not printed.