Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1939, The Far East, Volume III

693.001/550: Telegram

The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State

Tokyo, May 17, 1939—5 p.m.
[Received May 18—7:40 a.m.]

231. Our 177, April 14, 8 p.m.,⁵⁷ trade restrictions in North China.

1. My British colleague has furnished me with the following paraphrase of telegraphic instructions from his Foreign Office dated May 13, regarding a reply to the Japanese note to him of April 13. Craigie concurs in these instructions.

“I consider Japanese arguments call for a vigorous reply. This might be on the following lines.

(2) For reasons given in your note of March 10 and the United States note of March 11 the relevant portions of which can be suitably paraphrased His Majesty’s Government still regard trade restrictions in North China as constituting a serious discrimination against Great Britain in favor of Japan.

(3) They cannot accept the Japanese contention that question of treaties do not arise in this connection. The discrimination clearly contravenes provisions of Nine Power Treaty to which both China and Japan are parties.

(4) Whatever rights legitimately Chinese Government may have in the matter of trade control they are bound by this agreement. In so far as Peiping provisional regime purports to be a legitimate government it is bound to observe obligations binding on the Chinese state. Actually this regime is not recognized either by Great Britain or Japan and has no sovereign right to ignore treaties which, even if it were legitimate and recognized, it would be bound to observe as part of international obligations of China.

(5) Moreover, His Majesty’s Government are unable to accept the contention implied in the Japanese note that Peiping Provisional Government is acting independently in this matter and that Japanese attitude is limited to cooperation. This is contrary to obvious fact that His Majesty’s Government must continue to regard Provisional Government as a regime sponsored and controlled by Japanese authorities and they must hold Japanese Government responsible for its actions.

(6) Please consult your United States colleague and your French colleague with a view to replying on these lines to the Japanese note and let me have your observations”.

2. The Department will note, from comparison of the Japanese replies to our note (see my despatch 3849, April 27⁵⁸) and to the British note (see my despatch No. 3872, May 8⁵⁸), respectively, that in point of both tone and substance the former is more moderate than the latter. Further, the instructions to my British colleagues contemplate refutation of certain Japanese contentions which are set forth in their [reply] to the British note but not in their reply to our note. Accordingly, I cannot recommend that I be authorized to make rejoinder along the lines of the instructions which my British colleague has received.

3. Unless the Department perceives objection, we propose to address a further note to the Foreign Office pointing out that there has been little or no consideration given in [to?] the conditions complained of and requesting that these conditions which cannot be reconciled even with the objectives set out in the Japanese reply to our note be removed or corrected.

Grew

57. Not printed; it reported the Japanese reply of April 13 to the American note of March 11. For texts, see Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, pp. 831 and 833.
58. Despatch not printed.
58. Despatch not printed.