893.24/963: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Matthews) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 19—1:20 p.m.]
974. My telegram 931, November 11, 5 p.m. I have now received a written reply from the Foreign Office concerning the merchandise held up in Indochina. This note states that the re-export prohibitions have an “essentially provisional character”; that the measures were taken by the Governor General of Indochina to permit the competent authorities of France and of that colony to study the general question of the re-exportation of goods formerly destined for China and actually warehoused in Indochina preparatory to negotiations with the Japanese Government.
The note goes on to state that the goods affected by this negotiation are of different origins. A considerable part is covered by export credit insurance granted by the French State “which is in a situation analogous to that of the American Government.” It is added that as far as American merchandise is concerned the Ministry has taken due note of the Embassy’s statements and we may rest assured that the ultimate solution of the questions affecting the aforesaid merchandise will receive the special attention of the services studying the question.
Chauvel showed me a copy of the aide-mémoire which is being handed to Wellington Koo this afternoon in reply to a Chinese “protest” on this question.
The aide-mémoire states that there were 3 French ships loading at Haiphong, 1 for Fort Bayard, 1 for Hong Kong and 1 for Manila; the last, the Sikiang, was discovered by General Sumita’s agents to be loading cases containing gas masks. As a result of this discovery General Sumita was insisting on the establishment of Japanese control commissions both at Haiphong and at Saigon. This the French are protesting against at Tokyo and are engaged in negotiations on the whole question.
Chauvel said that gas masks were included in a list of war material, the importation of which into Indochina, was forbidden under the French agreement with the Japanese; (he himself had negotiated that agreement which was based on the Geneva Convention for the Control of Traffic in Arms of 192555). He was under the impression [Page 218] that the gas masks were of American origin but had no details with respect to the shipment nor whether they had been received in Indochina prior to the ban on arms shipments in transit.
He also showed me a telegram from Ambassador Henry at Tokyo reporting a 2-hour conversation with the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs. The latter emphasized the unprecedented and extraordinary situation of Indochina as a justification for the Japanese attempted seizures. Henry maintained the point of view that the Japanese had agreed that there was to be no “occupation” of Indochina and that the Japanese demands were quite unjustified. He got the impression that the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs was worried principally over the difficulties he would have in tackling the question with the Japanese military authorities. There the matter rests for the moment.
- Signed June 17, 1925, Foreign Relations, 1925, vol. i, p. 61.↩