18385/878/10
OUTWARD TELEGRAM
Colonial Office. (W.B. L. Monson. Eso
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be
With the Compliments
of the
Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs
kept under Lock and Key.]
US
198
STRIBUTION 108
[This telegram is of particular secrecy and should be retained
by the authorised recipient and not passed on]
[CYPHER]
No. 1816.
WAR CABINET DISTRIBUTION
TO: CHINA
FROM FOREIGN OFFICE TO CHUNGKING
December 22nd, 1942.
D. 4.05 p.m. December 22nd, 1942.
bbbb
180-183
IMMEDIATE.
193 Your telegram No. 1699 [ of 20th December: extraterritor- iality] has crossed my telegrams Nos. 1601, 1602 and 1603 which cover most of the points which you raise. Following are additional comments.
Inland navigation and coastal trade. In order to keep in line with the United States, who have inserted similar wording in their exchange of notes, you should request the insertion after the first sentence of the second paragraph in the text contained in my telegram No. 1602 [of the 18th December] of the following words:- .... and the Government of the Republic of China are prepared to take over any properties of His Majesty's nationals or companies which have been used for the purposes of these trades and which the owners may wish to dispose of and to pay adequate compensation therefor."
Irrawaddy is not a waterway of
2. Your paragraph 6.
international concern because it is not navigable in the territories of two different States. See Barcelona Convention on Waterways of 1921 to which China is a party and Article 1 of which contains a definition on which this statement is based. Therefore China cannot claim right of navigation on the Irrawaddy on the ground set out in paragraph 6 of your telegram under reference.
3. Your paragraph 8: dual nationality. If Chinese Government refuse to accept our proposal you should place on record that statement contained in iny telegram No. 1572 represent our view of the law.
4. Your paragraphs 9 and 10: overseas merchant shipping. We reluctantly agree to the addition of the word "coastal to the first paragraph of our text as given in my telegram No. 1602
but we cannot accept the Chinese wording contained in your paragraph 9, implications of which are in fact not clear.
O.T.F.