« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Among my colleagues the Paraguayan adhesion is considered a diplomatic triumph. Chile did not desire acceptance to be given and its Minister must be greatly disappointed.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that with the proper approach Brazil will accept and likewise withdraw from the entente against the pact.
The writer is pleased to render such a report, and also to advise that President Guggiari stated there would be no question of its ratification at the coming session of Congress in April. I have [etc.]
GEO. L. KREECK
The Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs (Zubizarreta) to the
American Minister (Kreeck) No. 904
ASUNCIÓN, November 17, 1928. MR. MINISTER: Referring to my note No. 618 of August 29 last, it is my duty to inform you that my Government accepts the treaty signed in Paris the 27th of August of this year, and by which the signatory Governments oblige themselves to renounce war, as an instrument of national policy in their relations among themselves, and to seek only by pacific means the arrangement or solution of every dispute that may arise among them, and that the project of adhesion of Paraguay to the said treaty will be submitted to the approval of the National Congress at an opportune time. I avail myself [etc.]
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Neville)
WASHINGTON, November 19, 1928–3 p.m. 123. Your despatch No. 977, October 8.
1. In your despatch under reference, the Department has noticed the statement that law officers of the Department of State are reported as being of opinion that conclusion of the customs treaty with the Nationalist Government in China constituted recognition of that Government.
2. The Government of the United States considers that the signing by the United States of a bilateral treaty, such as was signed by the Government of the United States and the Nationalist Government in China, implies recognition. This Government does not consider that adherence by an unrecognized Government to a multilateral treaty of which the Government of the United States is a signatory or to which it is a party entails recognition by this Government. To attribute to the Government of the United States the doctrine" in the third paragraph of your despatch under reference is erroneous. The adherence of the other Government is its unilateral act. Recognition is a matter primarily of intention, and intention on the part of the Government of the United States to recognize such other Government can not be imputed to this Government by an act of the other Government.
3. It is for the Japanese Government, of course, to decide what the action would be on its part that would constitute recognition of the Chinese Nationalist Government, and also whether ratification by Japan of the treaty for the renunciation of war to which China has adhered would constitute recognition of the Nationalist Government in China.
4. The Department is sending you this statement of the position of this Government for your information and discreet use.
5. With reference to the suggested reservation, the Department desires you to telegraph promptly if there is any likelihood that it will be seriously considered.
The Chargé in Salvador (Dickson) to the Secretary of State No. 1402
SAN SALVADOR, November 19, 1928.
[Received December 6.) Sir: Referring to despatch No. 1323 of September 19, 1928,98 informing the Department that the Government of El Salvador “is disposed to adhere” to the multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war, I have the honor to report that in accordance with the Department's unnumbered and undated circular instruction, two authenticated copies of the treaty in question were duly transmitted to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of El Salvador.
I have now received a reply, copy and translation of which are hereto attached,98 stating that this "Government will, at an opportune time, issue the respective resolution on this so important matter”.
The Department will, of course, be kept informed of developments. I have [etc.]
SAMUEL S. DICKSON
* Not printed.
711.90 h 12Anti-War/7
The French Ambassador (Claudel) to the Secretary of State
WASHINGTON, November 27, 1928. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: My Government has just sent me, with a request that I transmit it to Your Excellency, the instrument by which the Government of Afghanistan declares its adhesion to the pact against war, signed in Paris August 27, last, the text of which had been communicated to it by the Minister of France at Kabul.
I have the honor to send herewith to Your Excellency the original document drawn up in the Afghan language, together with the translation that was delivered to the Minister of France. As the Legation of France at Kabul, however, could not certify that the French text was in absolute conformity with the Afghan text, my Government took pains to have the translation verified and Your Excellency will please find herewith also the minor remarks of mere form for which the said verification gave occasion.99 Be pleased [etc.]
The Afghan Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mohammed Vali Khan) to the French Minister in Afghanistan (Feit)
[KABUL, October 3, 1928.] MR. MINISTER: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's note No. 141 of August 27 with which you were pleased to send us, according to the instructions of the French Government and in the name of the Government of the United States of America not represented at Kabul, the pact for renunciation of war signed at Paris August 27, in order to ascertain whether the Afghan Government also would adhere to that pact.
The Afghan Government, animated by pacific sentiments, desiring that the bases of perpetual peace be established among the nations of the whole world and convinced that only a mutual and intimate association of all peoples, based on the principles of peace, and free from all ambition, could ward off the scourge of war and establish universal peace, is ready to adhere to and earnestly participate in the pact signed at Paris on August 27 last.
For the Afghan text and the French translation with the French observations thereon, see Department of State, Treaty for the Renunciation of War, pp. 114-117.
Rendered into English from the French translation of the Afghan text as verified by the French Government.
It is obvious that the pact is likely to bring forth effective improvements in international relations and open new horizons to universal peace.
Consequently the Afghan Government declares, by means of this letter, officially and for all pertinent purposes, its adhesion to the pact for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in reciprocal relations and sincerely and fully accepts the three articles which constitute the said pact.
It is understood that this full adhesion of the Afghan Government refers only to the text of the treaty in the same form as that kindly communicated by Your Excellency to me in your note No. 141 of August 27.
The adherence of Afghanistan does not relate to the other protocols, documents, notes, modifications, or comments that may have been drawn up or exchanged in behalf of one or more states on the subject of the said pact.
I beg Your Excellency kindly to make the decision of the Afghan Government officially known to the Government of the United States of America in the same way that you acted in the name of the lastnamed Government in transmitting to my Government the text of the Kellogg Pact and inquiring how it would be received.
MOHAMMED VALI KHAN
PARTICIPATION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORK OF THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR THE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE*
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State No. 209
BERNE, December 16, 1927. L. N. No. 1023
[Received January 7, 1928.] Sir: I have the honor to refer to my previous despatches and telegrams relative to the fourth session of the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament, and to submit herewith certain reflections with which it seems desirable to occupy our thoughts in anticipation of the next session which will take place on March 15th. Certain new elements have entered into the situation,—that is to say the presence of the Russian delegation and the existence of the Security Committee. These elements and the point to which the discussion has progressed, have to a certain extent changed the problem and
• For correspondence concerning previous sessions of the Preparatory Commission, see Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. I, pp. 40 ff., and ibid., 1927, vol 1, pp. 159 ff. The minutes of the fifth session, March 15–24, 1928, are printed in League of Nations, Documents of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference Entrusted with the Preparation for the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Series VI (C.165.M.50.1928.IX), pp. 227 ff.
make it necessary again to take stock of where we stand and what line of policy we should follow in the future.
It is of course of secondary importance from the point of substance, but undoubtedly the Russian resolution : will come up for debate in the next meeting of the Preparatory Commission, and in anticipation of this it would be well that our delegation should receive careful instructions from the Government as to what attitude should be taken. You will desire to give a judgment, I think, upon the advisability from the American point of view of entering the arena definitely against this resolution. If you consider it advisable that we should play a minor role in this debate, I believe it would be quite possible for us to take the position that whatever might have been said as to the value of the idea, the form of the resolution is such in itself that we could not discuss it or even cast a vote on it. In this case we need have no fear that we will be left alone, since it is certain that many other nations will wage the battle against the Russians, which in its essence more nearly concerns them than us. If, on the other hand, you are of the opinion that the moment is ripe in the United States for certain definite pronouncements relative to this proposal, the debate would offer us the best sort of sounding board for the expression of any views which we might care to put out. If the Department does think it might be advisable to follow the latter course, the nature of the statement might well be reserved for future discussion, since there are various forms in which such a pronouncement could be made.
In regard to the real work of the Preparatory Commission, it appears problematical whether the Commission will begin a prolonged session as scheduled on March 15. As I have reported previously, the Security Committee will meet on February 20; even if they continue their debates through the March meeting of the Council they will have had barely three weeks in which to discuss a question of which no one can foresee the complexity and extent. It seems highly improbable, therefore, that on March 15 the Security Committee will be able to report any definite achievement to the Preparatory Commission, which situation will leave the delegates in the same state of mind in which they undertook the first reading of the convention in the third session; in other words, that feeling of security which the Security Committee has been summoned to create will hardly be present in the minds of the participating States as early as March 15. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that a further postponement of the gesture of the meeting of the Preparatory Commission will be made. Whatever
*Resolution submitted Nov. 30, 1927 "to proceed immediately to the working out in detail of a draft Convention for complete and general disarmament .. See League of Nations, Documents of the Preparatory Commission, Series V (C.667.M.225.1927.IX), p. 11.