Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1941, The Far East, Volume IV

711.94/21623/14

Memorandum Prepared in the Department of State³³

undated

Memorandum of Comment on Japanese Suggestions of June 8³⁴

Preamble.

No objection to suggested changes with the exception of the addition in the third paragraph after the words “Pacific area” of the words “as well as the prevention of the extension of the European war”. It seems inadvisable to include any statement open to possible misinterpretation to the effect that the United States would attempt to bring about a negotiated peace.

I. The concepts of the United States and of Japan respecting international relations and the character of nations.

No objection to suggested changes except that it is felt that the addition in the second paragraph after the word “household” of the words “living under the ideal of universal concord through justice and equity” tends to emphasize an idealistic concept rather than a practical one.

II. The attitudes of both Governments toward the European war.

The suggestion that the second sentence of the first paragraph of the draft of May 31³⁵ be omitted raises difficult questions. If the first sentence of the paragraph should stand alone, it would be regarded in the United States as a threat against this country in connection with a decision which belongs to this country alone. It is suggested that some way be found of indicating that the Japanese Government regards the United States as already involved in the European war and therefore not subject to the paragraph. Alternatively the first paragraph might be changed to read:

“The Government of Japan maintains that the purpose of the Tripartite Pact was, and is, defensive and that the provisions of the Pact do not apply to involvement in the European war through acts of self-defense.”

III. Action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan.

As indicated on several occasions, mention of the Konoe principles as a whole creates special difficulties. Moreover, we can appropriately refer to the Chinese Government at Chungking but not to “the Government of Chiang Kai-shek”. We do not understand why difficulties are presented by the phraseology used in the draft presented to the Japanese Ambassador on May 31. Question is raised whether Japan intends to continue to support Wang Ching-wei.

V. Economic activity of both nations in the Pacific area.

The pledge that Japanese activity and American activity in the Pacific shall be carried on in conformity with the principle of nondiscrimination in international commercial relations has been deleted. The making of such a pledge is deemed to be of special importance.

It is not clear what is the intent of the second paragraph, and it is suggested that examples be given of how Japan intends that the provisions of the paragraph would operate, whereupon further consideration could be given to this paragraph.

VI. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

No objection to the suggested change, namely, substituting the word “basic” for the word “controlling”.

ANNEXES

On the Part of the Government of Japan

III. Action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan.

As already stated, reference to the Konoe principles as a whole presents difficulties.

With reference to point numbered two, “Cooperative defense against communistic activities”, the word “injurious” has been omitted. This point is reserved for further discussion, in as much as no satisfactory formula has yet been presented.

With regard to point numbered three, “Economic cooperation”, the statements made are too narrow. For example, under (a) Japan could have ninety percent control of a particular enterprise and still maintain that she did not have a monopoly.

There is no objection to the other suggested changes, with the exception of point numbered nine in regard to Manchoukuo. The phraseology used in the draft handed the Japanese Ambassador on May 31 is decidedly preferable from our point of view.

VII. Neutralization of the Philippine Islands.

The suggested annex is entirely new, no need is perceived for it, the Philippines would have to be consulted before it could be adopted, and the subject matter would seem to be more properly one for treaty negotiations.

On the Part of the Government of the United States

II. The attitudes of both Governments toward the European war.

The annex on the part of the United States consisting largely of a quotation from the Secretary of State’s address of April 24³⁶ has been omitted. It is desirable that this statement be included or that some reference be made to it at least in an exchange of letters.

III. Action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan.

There is suggested an entirely new annex on the part of the United States. The introductory statement might be acceptable with some change in phraseology. Subheading (a), while not objectionable as a statement, does not in our opinion clarify with sufficient precision the language used in the annex on the part of Japan relating to this point. There is no objection to subheading (b). Subheading (c), with its intimation that Japanese troops may continue to be stationed in China, presents serious difficulties from our point of view, since the United States is expected to take some action with reference to the proposed terms of peace.

IV. Commerce between both nations.

Two new sentences have been added which are believed to be unobjectionable, provided it be understood by Japan that our supplying of commodities to Great Britain is part of our self-defense program.

VI. The policies of both nations affecting political stabilization in the Pacific area.

This entire section, with the exception of the last sentence, repeats statements made in our oral explanation. It is not clear why it is desired to have these statements in an annex. The inclusion of the last sentence would bring up again the question of immigration, which, as already indicated, does not in our opinion belong in these discussions.

Addendum.

The suggested addendum is entirely new, it raises important new questions, and it is believed that the introduction of such questions would seriously complicate rather than facilitate the present discussions.

33. Marked “Unofficial, exploratory and without commitment”, this memorandum was handed on June 10 to the Postmaster General by Mr. Hamilton, “under instruction from the Secretary of State, for the purpose of assisting the Postmaster General and Father Drought in conversing with the Japanese. The memorandum was handed by Mr. Walker to the Japanese.” In a separate memorandum of June 10 the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hamilton) stated, however, that “I told the Postmaster General that the Secretary had asked me to explain that these comments were designed to be of possible help to him and to Father Drought in conversing with the Japanese concerned and that the memorandum was not to be handed to the Japanese.”
34. Not printed, but see memorandum supra.
35. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, Vol. ii, pp. 446, 447.
36. See text as printed in Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, Vol. ii, p. 430.