793.94/4875: Telegram
The Consul General at Nanking (Peck) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 26—6 a.m.]
72. 1. In the evening of March 24th the Minister for Foreign Affairs told me he had been greatly disturbed on reading the Reuter account of the statement of the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs in Parliament on March 22nd30 in regard to the Chinese-Japanese controversy and he asked me to call yesterday and to telegraph to the Department of State and to the American Minister confidentially some comments which he felt impelled to make. Full report of his observations will be mailed but the following is a summary:
2. “The tenor of the statement seems based on the assumption that China and Japan are equally in the right. This will greatly disappoint the Chinese since they feel that Japan has been the aggressor and they have understood that the League and the friendly powers are attempting to establish international justice. China signed the various international covenants in good faith and has placed implicit reliance on them while at the same time, although under great provocation to retaliate against Japan, she has carefully restricted herself to defensive measures thus obeying the League resolution not to aggravate the situation and conforming to the pact against war. The observation of Sir John Simon concerning encouragement to violation of China’s territorial integrity was most disquieting because China had been under the impression that the question was not one merely of not countenancing such violation but of condemning and preventing it. Concerning the assertion that ‘there was no law or common sense in saying that in no conceivable circumstances could there ever be a subdivision of an enormous area like China’ the Minister for Foreign Affairs commented that it was surprising to find a British statesman intimating that a large nation had less right to the protection of its territorial integrity than a small nation for this principle would apply to India or to Canada as well as to China. More than ever, even if there had been indefinite movements elsewhere in China as stated by Simon, this fact did not justify Japan in promoting such a movement with the object of depriving China of Manchuria. China has been taught to rely on international justice from the time of Hay and Wilson onward but if the Chinese people find that justice has been denied to them they may be driven to fight in self-defense even though it be despairingly and hopelessly. China cannot deny her political imperfections which are due mainly to youthfulness of her Government but the imperfections [Page 634] of a youth do not justify others in robbing him. Simon in his statement as reported here laid stress almost exclusively on the mediatory; functions of the League ignoring its coequal functions of arbitration and the enforcement of international engagements. This fact caused the Minister of Foreign Affairs serious foreboding lest Great Britain might be wavering in her support of principles embodied in the Covenant, the Kellogg Pact and the Nine-Power Treaty. If this should unfortunately be the case the Minister of Foreign Affairs sincerely hoped that it was not true of the United States.”
3. When pressed for comment on this statement I have informally expressed the opinion that it was partially inspired by a desire to alleviate the bitterness felt by Japan at apparently universal condemnation and thus to prepare the way for a speedy settlement. A confidential friend of the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday pressed me for advice regarding China’s policy and I said that at the present stage of international advancement neither the League nor the various covenants could entirely obviate the results of China’s failure to gain national strength or the great military superiority of Japan and I advised that China should not be too exigent in connection with terms of settlement but should recognize that her greatest need especially in the Shanghai region was peace and an opportunity to develop politically and economically.31 I trust that the American Minister and the Department approve. By mail to the Minister.