862i.01/286
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 24.]
Sir: I have the honor to quote here below statements made in the present session of the Diet in regard to the Japanese Mandate Islands. [Page 63] Since Japan’s notice of intention to withdraw from the League of Nations was made, no little perturbation has been evidenced in various Japanese quarters over the possibility that a demand might be made by the League for a relinquishment of the mandate. This possibility seems to be one of the factors in the much discussed “crisis of 1935–36”, at which time Japan’s withdrawal from the League will become effective.
The statements quoted are comprehensive and categorical. They require no comment. The first quotation is from an interpellation by Mr. Yoshizawa, former Foreign Minister, in the House of Peers on January 31st:
“I may be permitted to express my firm conviction that even after March 27, 1935, the day on which Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations becomes effective, no change whatever will take place in regard to Japan’s administration over the Mandate Islands. But what attitude the Powers will take and what they will say cannot be taken for granted. But in the remote event that the Powers should question Japan’s status in the Mandate Islands, Japan, standing on a solid legal basis, would refuse to accede to any demand.”
Answering this interpellation Mr. Hirota, the Foreign Minister, stated:
“The Mandate Islands which should naturally have become Japanese territory were obtained under mandate because of the circumstances at Versailles. That Japan should lose her rights because of withdrawal from the League is untenable.”
On February 6, Mr. Mamoru Kishi, a Minseito member from Shizuoka Prefecture, stated in the House of Representatives:
“There is not the slightest doubt but that the sovereignty of these Mandate Islands rests with Japan, (applause). Japan has faithfully carried out its mandatory responsibilities up to the present. Rumors are current that Japan is secretly constructing military bases in these islands, but these stories are absolutely without foundation.…72 In view of the fact that the sovereignty of these islands rests with Japan, there is no reason why Japan should abandon its mandatory administration even though she resigns from the League. Nor is there legal, moral or political reason why the League or any other country should deprive Japan of these islands. In the remote event that Japan should be confronted by a demand for the return of the islands, the demand should be flatly rejected. What is the Government’s opinion concerning this matter?”
In the absence of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Taki, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated:
“As regards the question of Japanese administration over the Mandate Islands, the Government has already formulated its basic policies [Page 64] and is firmly resolved to carry them out. I am rather surprised that Mr. Kishi has brought up this question at the present time. (applause)”.
On February 21, Baron Takehiko Sonoda stated in the House of Peers:
“As regards the question of administration of the Mandate Islands, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has simply and clearly stated that the matter is not one with which foreign countries may interfere. But I would state that the matter is not so simple as that. At the time the Japanese Government decided to withdraw from the League of Nations, the Japanese navy issued a statement, in the form of an interview, announcing that Japan would resort to arms before relinquishing the Mandate Islands. Why did not the Minister for Foreign Affairs publish a statement before the world declaring that the Mandate Islands are Japanese possessions viewed from any standpoint? From a common-sense viewpoint, the word “mandate” is interpretable as “intrusted”. Consequently the impression may be gained that such “mandate” may be cancelled. Is it possible to say that this question will not be referred to the International Court of Justice? And is there not therefore danger that the years 1935–36 may witness the issue of a grave situation?”
The Foreign Minister, Mr. Hirota, stated in reply:
“I have already made a definite statement before this House in regard to the matter of the Japanese Mandate Islands. The views of the Japanese Government are according to my statement on that occasion. Therefore I am convinced that this matter will not create a problem in the future. Baron Sonoda asked why the Japanese Government has not made it clear that the Islands are Japanese territory. In regard to this point the views of the Government differ considerably from those of Baron Sonoda.
“The views of the Japanese Government are as follows: With regard to the mandatory administration over the South Seas Islands, Japan, in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Allied Powers and by the principal Central Powers, obtained the status of mandatory administrator over these islands.73 Even though Japan withdraws from the League of Nations, she will still maintain the status of mandatory administrator. This in no way means that these islands are Japanese territory. The mandate which Japan holds merely means that (these islands) are treated as a part of Japan. I believe that it is impossible for me to declare that these islands are Japan’s territories and therefore different from what is regarded as mandated territories. Consequently, I am of the opinion that even after Japan’s withdrawal from the League, the Japanese Government should continue to carry out, as heretofore, various measures relating to mandatory administration and should, as heretofore, send reports on its mandatory administration to the Mandate Administration Committee of the League of Nations.
“As regards the anxiety that a problem may arise over the Japanese mandatory administration in the future, I am certain that no such [Page 65] problem will arise as far as Japan is concerned. However, inasmuch as foreign countries exist, I cannot say definitely that other countries will not make a problem of the Japanese mandatory administration. But I hold that no matter what situation may arise and no matter what the circumstances, the capacity of Japan as mandatory administrator over the South Seas Islands remains unshakable.
“Regarding the fear that the Japanese mandatory administration question may be referred to the International Court of Justice, I would point out that even if such a situation does arise the status of Japan as mandatory administrator is not a matter to be dealt with from a legal and judicial viewpoint. As I have stated definitely in this House on a previous occasion, Japan’s status as mandate administrator is the result of discussions among the Allied Powers and the principal Central Powers, and is not the result of the provisions in regard to mandatory administration of the League of Nations. In the strength of this conviction, Japan is ready to reject flatly any proposal to refer the question of Japanese mandates to the International Court of Justice. As for the fear that this problem may assume serious dimensions in the future, I think it quite sufficient for me to announce that this Government’s view is that no such situation will arise”.
Further interpellations may be made in regard to the Mandate Islands during the present session of the Diet, but it does not appear that Japan’s attitude toward these islands can be set forth more definitely than has been done by the Foreign Minister as quoted above.
Respectfully yours,
- Omission indicated in the original despatch.↩
- Decision of the Council of Four at Paris, May 7, 1919, 4:15 p.m. (IC–181G), Foreign Relations, Paris Peace Conference, vol. v, pp. 506, 508.↩