893.811/915: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Minister in China (Johnson)
Washington, March 31, 1934—4
p.m.
87. Your 122, March 15, 4 p.m.
- 1.
- The Department entertains no doubt that the resolution of the Liao River Conservancy Board purporting to dissolve the Board and transfer its functions to the Manchukuo authorities was clearly ultra vires, as the agreement establishing the Board and prescribing its functions and authority cannot legally be amended or terminated without the consent of the Chinese Government and the Powers who participated with that Government in the making of the agreement.
- 2.
- The Department accordingly concurs in the view of the French Government, as communicated by the French Chargé, that the dissolution of the Board constitutes a violation of the Conservancy Agreement of 1914 and should be objected to by consulates concerned; and considers untenable the view of the British Legation that the parties to the Conservancy Agreement are estopped from making objection.
- 3.
- The Department shares the view advanced by the French that objection should be made, but believes that, if and when made, it should be addressed not to the Manchukuo régimé but to the Japanese Government. There should be kept in mind the fact that those countries which are members of the League of Nations and also the United States are definitely committed to the principle of non-recognition in reference to the Manchukuo regime and have in practice consistently refrained from any action breaching or implying intention to breach that principle. Recently the British Minister for Foreign Affairs stated in Parliament and the American Secretary of State said to the press that there is no change in the position of their respective Governments in this connection. The Department believes that objection should be registered with the Government of Japan, as the agency primarily responsible for the illegal action toward terminating the Conservancy Agreement, but does not believe that it would be desirable to notify the Chinese Government of such action. Accordingly, you are instructed to inform your interested colleagues of the views above expressed and to obtain their views as to the advisability and practicability of joint action of the type thus indicated, and report.
- 4.
- Although the Department does not anticipate that such action would bring about the restoration of the functions of the Conservancy Board, it believes that this clear violation of an international agreement should be formally objected to, on principle, in order to put on record the view of the interested Governments that there is involved a violation of the agreement and that the other powers concerned are not indifferent thereto.
Hull