793.003/1001: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 14—3:33 a.m.]
6401. I have just received the following letter dated November 12 with enclosure from Mr. Eden regarding the draft treaty on extraterritoriality in China.
[Page 349]Mr. Eden’s Letter:
“In your letters of the 28th October and the 1st November you asked for our observations on two messages from the Department of State dated the 27th (see Department’s 5325, October 27, 5 p.m.) and 31st October (see Department’s 5440, October 31, 3 p.m.) relating to our draft treaties on extraterritoriality in China.
I now enclose a statement of our views on the points raised which I should be very grateful if you would convey to the Department of State.
In the difficult question of coastal and inland navigation we feel strongly the desirability of postponing precise arrangements until we come to negotiate comprehensive treaties on a reciprocal basis. If we seem to be somewhat insistent on this point you will understand that it is in part because our interest in these trades in China is, in normal times, very great—greater perhaps than that of any other foreign power except Japan—and that the subject is therefore for us one of the first importance.”
Enclosure:
“The Foreign Office concurs in the reply given to the Minister Counsellor of the Chinese Embassy in Washington in regard to the points enumerated in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 1 of the message from the Department of State dated 27th October, although the only agreement relating to Woosung of which they are aware was the Sino-Japanese armistice agreement reached with the help of friendly powers in 1932,72 which was obviously nullified by the subsequent outbreak of hostilities. While regarding the Boxer indemnity as being abrogated by the present agreement, His Majesty’s Government are enquiring whether the Chinese Government wish to prolong the validity of the Wang–Lampson exchange of notes of September 1930,73 which was of mutual benefit to the two countries.
The Foreign Office are also in general agreement with the points set out in the third sub-paragraph of paragraph 1 of the Department of State’s message of 27 October. Their views are as follows: Questions of inland navigation and coastal trade are not expressly covered in the draft treaty presented to the Chinese nor would article 2 (article 1, American draft) specifically abrogate any treaty rights under which British ships have hitherto been permitted to engage in inland navigation and coastal trade. Moreover, His Majesty’s Government would be very reluctant to include in the present treaty any restrictive provisions regarding shipping which may not be strictly necessary. They would wish instead to discuss these questions at a later stage [Page 350] with a view to arriving at some mutual arrangement in the course of negotiations for a comprehensive treaty of commerce and navigation such as article 7 of the American draft (article 8 of ours) foresees. Meanwhile they would be prepared to tell the Chinese Government that while they have no wish to retain the unilateral treaty rights they at present possess, they hope that pending the negotiations for a comprehensive treaty the Chinese Government will not prohibit British shipping from engaging in inland navigation and, when this again becomes possible, the coastal trade of China, especially as both in the United Kingdom and the Colonies Chinese shipping is in practice permitted to engage in these trades.
It seems likely that if the matter were dealt with on these lines time would be saved in negotiating the treaty as a whole. But in any case it is the opinion of the Foreign Office that the line just proposed makes a better tactical approach to the Chinese Government than the immediate offer of treaty restrictions. If, nevertheless, the inclusion of an additional article in the treaty became unavoidable His Majesty’s Government would be willing to accept one on the general lines of that proposed in the message from the State Department enclosed in Mr. Winant’s letter of 1st November,74 but they would wish in the British draft to bring the wording into line with the comparable provisions in other commercial treaties concluded by this country and to consult the Government of India further in this matter.
The Foreign Office would point out, however, that the words ‘ports, places and waters of the other which are or may be open to foreign commerce’ in the text proposed by the State Department would appear to be inconsistent with article 5 of the American draft treaty which accords the right to carry on trade throughout the Republic of China. It is suggested that the words ‘foreign shipping’ or preferably ‘overseas merchant shipping’ would be more suitable in this context than ‘foreign commerce.’ The phrase ‘overseas merchant shipping’ is preferable because it would avoid any ground for discrimination against foreign shipping as regards the ports open to it.”
- For text of the agreement, signed at Shanghai, May 5, 1932, see Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 217.↩
- League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. cxv, p. 494.↩
- It was based on Department’s telegram No. 5440, October 31, 3 p.m., p. 341.↩