693.001/474
Memorandum Handed by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (Arita) to the American Ambassador in Japan (Grew) on December 8, 1938
1. Your Excellency stated in part the other day:
“The treaties relating to the Far East to which the United States is a party and in which provisions relating to that principle appear were in all instances concluded with a view to decreasing and avoiding frictions which had developed in or which might develop in international contacts in that area. We feel that respect for an observance of those principles and provisions will make for peace and general prosperity whereas contrary courses would inevitably make for friction and consequences injurious to all countries …”35
Granting that these treaties, in the days when they were made, were calculated to prevent international friction, would the literal application of the same treaties to the altered conditions of the world today and to the new situation now developing in East Asia really make, as Your Excellency states, for peace and general prosperity? I do not believe so.
[Page 815]2. Equality of commercial opportunity is what Japan has been advocating all these years, though, unfortunately, things have not turned the way she wanted, and Japanese merchandise of good quality and low price is subjected to discriminatory treatment almost everywhere abroad. Japan, however, even now shares in principle the views of the United States that commercial equal opportunity is conducive to world prosperity and desires to uphold that principle among all nations.
However, what I wish to point out in this connection is the existence, in a great country like the British Empire, of a special system of preference between the mother state and the colonies and possessions or among the colonies and possessions themselves. Your Excellency says that the establishment by any country of a preferred position for itself in another country is incompatible with American and world prosperity. What does Your Excellency think of the above mentioned relationships between Great Britain and the British dominions and colonies or among the British dominions and colonies themselves? Is it the opinion of Your Excellency that the case of the British Empire, which forms a single political unit, is different, and that Japan, Manchoukuo and China, not being one politically, cannot be permitted to establish among themselves mutual economic relationships such as exist within the British Empire?
3. In view of the fact that there exist in the world today such vast economic units as Great Britain, Soviet Russia and the United States of America on the one hand and such a small economic unit as Japan on the other, it is our firm conviction that little contribution can be made towards bringing about world peace.
Laying aside the question of whether it is right or wrong to call the economic relationship of mutual co-operation between Japan, Manchoukuo and China as an “economic bloc”, this special relationship is based on the above conviction. Indeed, it is our belief that this is the means whereby world peace can be achieved, and not, by any means, one that is in conflict with the idea of world prosperity. The misgivings prevailing abroad concerning the establishment of economic co-operation between Japan, Manchoukuo and China is based on the misunderstanding that Japan may eventually obtain an economic monopoly of China. In this connection the information received by Your Excellency to the effect that “American trade with China will be tolerated only if American interests deal through Japanese middle-men” is entirely groundless.
The purpose of closer economic relations between Japan, Manchoukuo and China is, in the field of business, to assure the supply of necessary products which are essential to the up-keep of our [Page 816] national existence. In order to achieve this end it might become necessary to grant to certain industries monopolistic privileges as measures of protection. In such cases, while foreigners will not be allowed to establish competitive business, they may participate in those industries (with their capital, technique, and materials), within the scope of the established plans. With the exception of these special enterprises, a large field of business will be open to the nationals of third countries whose economic activities will not at all be restricted but rather welcomed. To cite an example, when an enquiry was made by a certain American businessman concerning the production of eggs in China, we replied to the said person, through our Consulate-General in New York, that American participation would be welcome.
In the field of trade there will not be established, as a rule, any special discrimination against third countries either in customs duty or in other systems of trade barrier. Under normal conditions, therefore, it is unimaginable that the trade of third countries should be prohibited or subjected to undue discrimination.
- Omission indicated in the original memorandum.↩