793.94/3321: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Forbes) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 27—8:33 a.m.]
281. The French and British Ambassadors and I were requested to call at the Foreign Office in successive half hours this morning and were received by Nagai, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, who apologized for the inability of the Prime Minister to receive us due to the necessity of his presence at the meeting of the Diet. He delivered a statement, which is being given out to the press today and cabled in full to Debuchi, and the following memorandum:
“The Foreign Minister of the Imperial Government has carefully read the memorandum from the Secretary of State of America which was submitted by the American Ambassador in Japan under date of December 24, 1931.90
The Imperial Government deeply appreciates the friendly concern the American Government has always had with regard to the present incident and at the same time has paid careful attention to the argument expressed in the statement of the Secretary of State on December 10th.91
According to the memorandum of the Secretary of State, judging from reports made by military officers in Manchuria of America and three other countries there is no evidence of any preparations on the part of the Chinese for attack. The Chinchow military authorities are keeping great military forces in general at Tahushan west of the Peiping-Mukden line and that vicinity, and are not only steadily making military preparations by despatching advance forces to different places along the right bank of the Liao River but are using mounted bandits and other insubordinate elements and are systematically disturbing peace, as is clearly shown in the attached statement of the Imperial Government of December 27th.92
[Page 71]On December 10th when the Council adopted a resolution, the Japanese delegate made a definite reservation that the Imperial Army will be obliged to start military operations against bandits and other insubordinate elements for the purpose of restoring peace and order.93 In the fear that in starting the above military operations on a large scale a collision will occur with the above-mentioned Chinese, complete subjugation has been refrained from for a time. Towards the close of November a proposal regarding the question of withdrawal from the vicinity of Chinchow being advanced by the Chinese side, conversations between Japan and China were conducted for about one month, but on account of insincerity on China’s part the above-mentioned withdrawal has not been realized up to the present.94 Meanwhile the activities of groups of bandits instigated and employed by the Chinchow military authorities became so serious that there was finally created a situation that is feared might bring about a fundamental bankruptcy of general peace and order in South Manchuria. Thereupon the Imperial Army was recently obliged to move out simultaneously and begin the subjugation of bandit bands on a comparatively large scale. The fact that the Imperial Army did not take initiatory measures such as attack on the Chinese Army willingly in defiance of the resolutions adopted by the Council on September 30th and December 10th, is minutely mentioned in the statement of the Imperial Government above referred to.
The Imperial Government is determined to remain loyal to the League of Nations Covenant, the No War Treaty, other various treaties and the two resolutions adopted by the Council regarding the present incident. In spite of the fact that the Japanese people are greatly irritated over the systematic disturbance of peace by the Chinchow military authorities, the Japanese Army restricted the freedom of subjugation of bandits for a period of one month. In the meanwhile the Government has endeavored, by resorting to all possible diplomatic measures, to prevent beforehand a collision between the Japanese and Chinese Armies that is likely to occur when subjugation is carried out. The Imperial Government trusts that the American Government will surely understand that this sincerity and forbearance are in accord with the spirit of faithfulness to obligations based on the above-mentioned treaties and the resolutions adopted by the Council”.
[Paraphrase]
In his statement Mr. Nagai charged the Chinese with bad faith because they failed to withdraw their troops after Wellington Koo’s proposition. I pointed this out to Mr. Nagai and said you had, after a careful study of the negotiations, reached the conclusion, which I had conveyed to him, that there was no bad faith; and in view of that fact, I thought that if the charge of bad faith were left out, the Japanese statement would be strengthened and be made less subject to unfavorable criticism. It was as a friend of Japan that, I said, I told him this and in the hope that his country would not put itself in a false [Page 72] position by using a clause which already had been construed impartially as not being fair. This he advised me he would take up with Inukai and inform me later by telephone, which he did, telephoning to the effect that the charge referred both to the attitude of the young Marshal Chang and of Wellington Koo, and that to let these words stand was the decision they had reached.
In my mind he left no doubt that the solicitude of the Governments of the three powers had resulted in the generals in Manchuria being cautioned to avoid where possible attacks on regular Chinese troops. In addition to the fairly definite phrases both in statement and in the memorandum, he gave me emphatic verbal assurance that unless the regular Chinese troops were engaged in marauding, the Japanese had no intention of attacking them.
Japanese statements have reported the occurrence of a remarkable increase in the number of bandit raids. Attention is called to this fact.
The Legation at Peiping has been sent a copy of this telegram.