The foreign policy of this Government is well known. It is one of peace
based on that mutual respect that arises from mutual regard for
international rights and the discharge of international obligations. It is
our purpose to promote understanding and good will between ourselves and
all other people. The American people are altogether lacking in an
appreciation of the tremendous good fortune that surrounds their
international position. We have no traditional enemies. We are not
embarrassed over any disputed territory. We have no possessions that are
coveted by others; they have none that are coveted by us. Our borders are
unfortified. We fear no one; no one fears us. All the world knows that the
whole extent of our influence is against war and in favor of peace, against
the use of force and in favor of negotiation, arbitration, and adjudication
as a method of adjusting international differences. We look with disfavor
upon all aggressive warfare. We are strong enough so that no one can charge
us with weakness if we are slow to anger. Our place is sufficiently
established so that we need not be sensitive over trifles. Our resources,
are large enough so that we can afford to be generous. At the same time we
are a nation among nations and recognize a responsibility not only to
ourselves, but in the interests of a stable and enlightened civilization,
to protect and defend the international rights of our Government and our
citizens.
It is because of our historical detachment and the generations of
comparative indifference toward it by other nations that our public is
inclined to consider altogether too seriously the reports that we are
criticized abroad. We never had a larger foreign trade than at the present
time. Our good offices were never more sought and the necessity for our
assistance and cooperation was never more universally declared in any time
of peace. We know that the sentiments which we entertain toward all other
nations are those of the most sincere friendship and good will and of all
unbounded desire to help, which we are perfectly willing to have judged by
their fruits. In our efforts to adjust our international obligations we
have met with a response which, when everything is considered, I believe
history will record as a most remarkable and gratifying demonstration of
the sanctity with which civilized nations undertake to discharge their
mutual obligations. Debt settlements have been negotiated with practically
all of those who owed us and all finally adjusted but two, which are, in
process of ratification. When we consider the real sacrifice that will be
necessary on the part of other nations, considering all their
circumstances, to meet their agreed payments, we ought to hold them in
increased admiration and respect. It is true that we have extended to them
very generous treatment, but it is also true that they have agreed to repay
its all that we loaned to them and some interest.
A special conference on the Chinese customs tariff provided for by the
treaty between the nine powers relating to the Chinese customs tariff
signed at Washington on February 6, 1922, was called by the Chinese
Government to meet at Peking, on October 26, 1925. We participated in this
conference through fully empowered delegates and, with good will,
endeavored to cooperate with the other participating powers with a view to
putting into effect promises made to China at the Washington conference,
and considering any reasonable proposal that might be made by the Chinese
Government for the revision of the treaties on the subject of China's
tariff. With these aims in view the American delegation at the outset of
the conference proposed to put into effect the surtaxes provided for by the
Washington treaty and to proceed immediately to the negotiation of a
treaty, which, among other things, was to make provision for the abolition
of taxes collected on goods in transit, remove the tariff restrictions in
existing treaties, and put into effect the national tariff law of China.
Early in April of the present year the central Chinese Government was
ousted from power by opposing warring factions. It became impossible under
the circumstances to continue the negotiations. Finally, on July 3, the
delegates of the foreign powers, including those of the United States,
issued a statement expressing their unanimous and earnest desire to proceed
with the work of the conference at the earliest possible moment when the
delegates of the Chinese Government are in a position to resume discussions
with the foreign delegates of the problems before the conference. We are
prepared to resume the negotiations thus interrupted whenever a Government
representing the Chinese people and acting on their behalf presents itself.
The fact that constant warfare between contending Chinese factions has
rendered it impossible to bring these negotiations to a successful
conclusion is a matter of deep regret. Throughout these conflicts we have
maintained a position of the most careful neutrality. Our naval vessels in
Asiatic waters, pursuant to treaty rights, have been used only for the
protection of American citizens.
Silas H. Strawn, Esq., was sent to China as American commissioner to
cooperate with commissioners of the other powers in the establishment of a
commission to inquire into the present practice of extraterritorial
jurisdiction in China, with a view to reporting to the Governments of the
several powers their findings of fact in regard to these matters. The
commission commenced its work in January, 1926, and agreed upon a joint
report which was signed on September 16, 1926. The commission's report has
been received and is being studied with a view to determining our future
policy in regard to the question of extraterritorial privileges under
treaties between the United States and China.
The Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference met at Geneva on
May 18 and its work has been proceeding almost continuously since that
date. It would be premature to attempt to form a judgment as to the
progress that has been made. The commission has had before it a
comprehensive list of questions touching upon all aspects of the question
of the limitation of armament. In the commission's discussions many
differences of opinion have developed. However, I am hopeful that at least
some measure of agreement will be reached as the discussions continue. The
American representation on the commission has consistently tried to be
helpful, and has kept before it the practical objective to which the
commission is working, namely, actual agreements for the limitation of
armaments. Our representatives will continue their work in that direction.
One of the most encouraging features of the commission's work thus far has
been the agreement in principle among the naval experts of a majority of
the powers parties to the Washington treaty limiting naval armament upon
methods and standards for the comparison and further limitation of naval
armament. It is needless to say that at the proper time I shall be prepared
to proceed along practical lines to the conclusion of agreements carrying
further the work begun at the Washington Conference in 1921.