500.C001/1080: Telegram
The Consul at Geneva (Gilbert) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 27—3:25 p.m.]
105. Consulate’s 103, March 26, 5 p.m.
1. The following is summary of a statement made by Yokoyama81 to the press: [Page 94]
- (a)
- From a legal standpoint all relationship to the League will be severed. Japan will have no right nor obligation vis-à-vis the League. The League cannot, however, ignore the existence of Japan as a world power and especially her preponderant position in the Far East. Japan cannot ignore the existence of the League as the most important international organization and especially its utility as a central organ of humanitarian technical endeavors.
- (b)
- In regard to collaboration in technical activities Japanese experts serving in a private capacity on League organs will presumably continue until the expiration of their mandate and as regards official delegates of the governments they will not take part in commissions unless invited afresh by the competent League authority.
- (c)
- As regards mandates Japan as a signatory of the international statutes will continue to present its annual reports to the Mandates Commission. At the last meeting of the commission the Japanese representative declared that his Government would give precise reply to certain questions and the Council of the League took note of the report in which this declaration was recorded.
- (d)
- As to the Permanent Court, the position of Japan will undergo no change.
2. In a statement to the press Hoo82 makes the following observations.
This is the first time the Secretary General makes a declaration and it is questionable whether he should make this one without authorization from the Council, the Assembly or the Sino-Japanese Advisory Committee; the declaration seems to conflict with paragraph 3 of article 1 of the Covenant; the Secretary General’s apparent interpretation of the Covenant would weaken the League by making it possible for any member to cancel its obligations by resigning.
3. The Secretary General’s statement and incidentally that of the Japanese have evoked widespread questioning. The substance of Avenol’s position is of course in line with the de facto attitude of the League which has prevailed for some time and which I have discussed in a number of previous communications. Nevertheless despite any attempt to restrict the interpretation of the text the effect especially that portion relating to obligations is seen as significant not only as respecting Japan but in relation to the entire principle and practice of obligations of states under the Covenant. The chief speculation turns, however, on the motives for making any such statement. It is a marked departure from precedent for the Secretary General to issue such a pronouncement of political policy especially one interpretive of the Covenant and there is further the thought that no obvious circumstances render such a pronouncement other than gratuitous. From knowledge of Avenol’s character it is difficult to view his action other than as being definitely motivated either by what [Page 95] might be termed League policy or in respect to the policy of some League powers. Except in the field of the most general speculation there is nothing to adduce on these points. In some quarters taking into consideration the difference in time between Tokyo and Geneva it is seen that the statement formed a platform for that of Hirota. In any case it is difficult to believe that it was made without prior knowledge of Paris and probably of London.
Following what China feels to have been a series of rebuffs by the League particularly as reported during the last Assembly, Hoo fears a most adverse effect on Chinese League relations.