893.6363 Manchuria/229
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 26.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Embassy’s despatch No. 1400 of April 30 last14 enclosing a clipping from Hansard which published [Page 918] the Foreign Secretary’s statement of April 29 regarding the British Government’s protests to Japan on the Manchukuo oil monopoly and the texts of a Japanese aide-mémoire of March 25, 1935 and the British reply of April 12 on that subject.
In the House of Commons last night Sir Samuel Hoare, the new Foreign Secretary, was asked whether he had received a reply from the Japanese Government and whether he could now indicate what action is to be taken by the British Government with a view to reaching a successful conclusion in this matter at an early date. In reply, Sir Samuel Hoare stated as follows:
“No reply has been received. In the meantime the Manchukuo Oil Monopoly has come into force and in the circumstances the British and American oil companies concerned have decided that they have no alternative but to withdraw from the market. Conditions of withdrawal are understood to be the subject of discussion between the companies and the Manchurian authorities. The view taken by His Majesty’s Government of the monopoly and of the responsibility of the Japanese Government is sufficiently indicated in the full reply returned by my predecessor to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 29th April last, to which I have nothing to add.”
Reference was made to the above statement in an informal conversation at the Foreign Office and the Embassy was advised that the decision of the British oil companies to withdraw from the Manchukuo market does not necessarily mean that they will also withdraw from Japan where the situation is somewhat different.
As mentioned in the last paragraph of the Embassy’s telegram No. 272 of June 17, 4 p.m.,15 the Foreign Secretary was also asked in the House of Commons last night whether he had any statement to make on the present situation in China, to which he replied textually as follows:
“For various reasons the effects upon China of the world economic depression were delayed. For some months past, however, her economic situation has been one of undoubted difficulty and the position has been still further complicated by the recent rise in the price of silver. As the House will be aware, His Majesty’s Government have been closely and sympathetically following developments, and they have now arranged that Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, chief economic adviser to His Majesty’s Government, should proceed to China at an early date in order that he may be in a position to advise them on the situation.
Despite the financial crisis, the political situation, in recent months, was not unfavourable. There were signs of a steady progress towards order and stability and the success of the Central Government’s campaign against the Communists had contributed towards an extension [Page 919] of its authority and influence. In North China, however, there have been disquieting developments during the past two weeks or so. Reports are conflicting in certain details, and the situation is liable to rapid change, but broadly it appears that the local Japanese military authorities made representations regarding persons or organizations alleged to be hostile to themselves in or near the demilitarized zone established between China and Japan by the Tangku armistice.16 The local Chinese authorities took measures to meet those representations, but certain points remained outstanding and still appear to be the subject of local discussion.
In regard to the most recent developments in North China I have been in communication with His Majesty’s representatives in Tokyo and Nanking, and through them with the Chinese and Japanese Governments. These communications are still continuing.”
Respectfully yours,
Counselor of Embassy
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- For text of the Tangku Truce Agreement between the Chinese and Japanese military authorities, signed May 31, 1933, see Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 120.↩