711.94/5–2441
Memorandum by the Adviser on Political Relations (Hornbeck)91
Comments on draft of May 23
A. On page 5, in Article II, the central paragraph should, in my opinion, be deleted. The paragraph reads:
“The Government of Japan maintains that its obligations of military assistance under the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany and Italy will be applied in accordance with the stipulation of Article III of the said Pact.”
Such a provision should not be admitted, it seems to me, into any agreement to which the United States becomes a party. The Government [Page 220] of Japan entered voluntarily into its treaty of alliance with the Axis powers; it chooses to remain in that alliance; in that treaty, in Article III, there is a provision which on its face creates an obligation for the Japanese Government in certain circumstances to take military action; in the paragraph under reference of the document now under reference, there is made an affirmation on the part of the Government of Japan that the said Government’s “obligations of military assistance” will be applied “in accordance with the stipulation of Article III of the” Tripartite Pact. The Government of the United States should not, in my opinion, give an acceptance to or an assent to any such declaration of policy by the Government of Japan.
B. Page 11, Article VIII. This article relates to the question of Japanese immigration into the United States. In my opinion it would be advisable to leave this article out entirely. Its subject matter has been a cause and source of a great deal of trouble over many years. In this country, several Administrations have burned their fingers in connection with it. Inclusion of this article would weaken this document and add to the many respects in which the agreement, if concluded, would be vulnerable. If anything on the subject is to be included, the drafted paragraph should, in my opinion, be very carefully revised.
C. Annex on the part of the Japanese Government. Ill, item 9. This item reads: “Independence of Manchukuo”. The Government of the United States should not, in my opinion, in any way sponsor or give countenance or endorsement to the concept of “Independence of Manchukuo”. Least of all should it do this in a formal document—or in any official paper. A sponsoring or countenancing by the American Government of this concept in this context would, in my opinion, undermine and vastly weaken this Government’s contention and boast that it stands for and will stand by principles. It would constitute an abandonment in substantial measure of a position which the American Government has taken at intervals during the past thirty-five years and which it has held conspicuously during the last ten years. There is no practical need for us to do this in connection with and as a part of the project under consideration. To do it would weaken our influence with the Chinese. It would not add to our influence with the Japanese. It would commit us to a procedure of “appeasement”. From such a sponsorship once assumed we would not be able—no matter what may come of the project and no matter whether the agreement, if concluded, were lived up to—later to retreat. We might easily find that we had given something (something rather substantial: the abandonment of a principle and a position) for nothing.
D. Annex and supplement on the part of the United States. Ill, item “2. Cooperative defense against Communistic activities”. I feel [Page 221] strongly that we should resist inclusion of this item in this form. This item is designed to give countenance to a specific feature of Japanese foreign policy, which happens, also, to be a specific feature of an existing agreement between the Axis powers and Japan. Germany, Italy and Japan are committed to the principle of common action in opposition to Communistic activities. Their commitment is obviously aimed at the Soviet Union. Japan seeks to draw China into the orbit of that opposition. There is no warrant for a countenancing or a sponsoring by the United States of that feature of Japanese and Axis policy. This item could easily be rephrased, be made to read in general terms, along lines such as: “Cooperative defense against alien subversive ideologies and activities.”
In addition to the above, there are various changes which regardless of substance should in my opinion be made in phraseologies—in order to make the agreement read with approximate accuracy and approximation to “good English”. This is especially true as regards various and sundry of the paragraph headings. I have entered in red pencil on the face of the copy here attached of the draft suggestions for some such changes, keeping them to a minimum.
By way of precaution against any possible misunderstanding, it should be understood that the fact of my making suggestions in relation to the draft under reference and in other connections relating to the project which is under consideration should under no circumstances be construed as implying that this project in any way has or could by any process of drafting or redrafting be made to have my favorable opinion.
- Submitted to the Legal Adviser (Hackworth).↩