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

711.94/254033/35

Draft Statement Prepared in the Division of Far Eastern Affairs

[Washington, November 14, 1941.]

Oral

Reference is made to the proposed formulae for the withdrawal and stationing of Japanese forces in China and Indochina received from the Japanese Ambassador first on November 7 and again on November 10.⁶

This Government when there has come up for discussion the question of the peace terms the Japanese Government may propose to the Chinese Government for a settlement of their differences has believed it desirable, in view of the basic purpose of our discussions, to make an effort to call attention to the intrinsic value of the practical application of certain fundamental broad-gauge principles.

We have also commented that, without desiring to pass upon the merits of specific terms, it would seem desirable to be reasonably sure in advance that any suggestion to the Chinese Government to enter into negotiations with the Japanese Government would be favorably received and would thus contribute to the end in view. We have felt that, in order best to ensure that an approach to the Chinese Government would accomplish its purpose, this Government would want to be in position to reply to any questions of the Chinese Government by pointing out that the terms which the Japanese Government has in mind constitute practical manifestations of the liberal, broad-gauge principles we have discussed.

Consonant with the foregoing, it is suggested that, quite apart from any consideration of the merits of the program or the formula under reference which Japan has now suggested, it would be helpful, in answering questions of the Chinese Government if that Government were approached, to have an indication from the Japanese Government of the tentative program which it proposes to follow in withdrawing its troops from China and French Indochina and in stationing troops in certain areas in China. Such a tentative program, it is suggested, might indicate what percentage of Japanese troops at present in China and French Indochina would be withdrawn immediately, what percentage would be withdrawn at subsequent stages, what percentage of Japanese forces now in China would continue to be stationed in China for a limited period, and the probable duration of that period.

Referring to the fact that in its proposals under reference the Japanese Government has included for the first time during the course of the conversations between the Japanese Ambassador and the Secretary of State the Island of Hainan as a place where Japan desires to station its armed forces for an unspecified period, this Government is constrained to observe that, while it had hoped that the Japanese Government would indicate a desire to move as rapidly as possible toward withdrawal of its armed forces from China, the inclusion of Hainan Island would seem to represent a regrettable expansion of the area in which Japan desires to station its troops in foreign territories.

On October 2 this Government pointed out to the Japanese Government that the procedure under which one country already in military occupation of territory of another country proposed to the second country the continued stationing of its troops in certain of the occupied areas as a basic condition for a peaceful settlement and thus for the withdrawal of other occupationary forces would not seem to be in keeping with the progressive and enlightened courses and principles which we have mentioned and for that reason would not, in our opinion, make for peace or offer prospects of stability. We feel, in the light of the experience of this Government, that such a procedure would not be likely to serve the best interests of Japan or of China.

The Secretary of State in conversations with the Japanese Ambassador has frequently referred to the experiences of this Government in its relations with its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere by way of illustrating the values which we feel flow automatically to a country practically applying the principles and broad-gauge programs we have mentioned.

Ten years ago, the United States was not regarded by the peoples and Governments of the other American Republics with particular regard or esteem. Today, the United States enjoys the most friendly relations of its history with these countries. This remarkable change in attitude from one of indifference and even coolness to one of confidence is the result of a scrupulous respect by the United States for the sovereign rights and attributes of the twenty other American Republics and of according full confidence and trust in them to discharge equitably and fully their sovereign responsibilities.

The application of the Good Neighbor Policy has taken many forms. The United States has withdrawn its Marines from Nicaragua⁷ and Panama,⁸ abrogated the treaty embodying the so-called Piatt Amendment⁹ that gave it the right of intervention in the internal affairs of Cuba by negotiating a new treaty,¹⁰ amended its treaty with Panama to relinquish certain rights of interference,¹¹ eliminated its special privileges with regard to a trans-isthmian canal in Mexico,¹² abandoned its direct financial controls in Haiti¹³ and the Dominican Republic¹⁴ and taken a multitude of other steps large and small.

The day-by-day, year-by-year, functioning of this policy has won the confidence and friendship of each one of the other American Republics. This has meant many benefits, tangible and intangible, for the United States.

In the economic field this policy paved the way for the conclusion of trade agreements with twelve of the other American Republics. The negotiation of these agreements would have been far more difficult—indeed, some of them might never have been concluded with success—were it not for the friendly attitude of those countries which was naturally created by mutual confidence and respect. The foreign trade of the United States with the other American Republics increased from $573,800,000 in 1932 to $1,214,830,000 in 1939. Although this expansion in part is attributable to the general world recovery during the period mentioned, a part must also be attributed to the conclusion of the agreements in question, which was, in turn, greatly facilitated by the Good Neighbor Policy.

In the economic field trade restrictions, many of them discriminatory, have been removed so that today United States commerce enjoys unconditionally the treatment of the most-favored-nation. Today, fair and equitable treatment is the rule for United States interests, whereas formerly those interests encountered many stumbling blocks.

The political relations of the United States have also prospered under this policy of fair dealing, cooperation, and mutual accommodation. Since 1933 there have been five important inter-American meetings. At each one of these meetings complex and knotty problems were presented for consideration, were discussed from every point of view, and finally were resolved satisfactorily to all. Every resolution, convention, or treaty adopted at these five meetings was by unanimity.

The foregoing comment is illustrative of the liberal, progressive and broad-gauge policies and programs which the Government of the United States is convinced offer the only sound hope for stable peace and prosperity and which this Government is also convinced will, if adopted by Japan, bring Japan benefits similar to those which have accrued to the United States.

6. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, pp. 709 and 710, 712.
7. See Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. v, pp. 852 ff.
8. Possibly error for Haiti; for withdrawal of Marines from Haiti, see Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. v, pp. 293 ff.
9. Treaty signed May 22, 1903, ibid, 1904, p. 243.
10. Treaty signed May 29, 1934, ibid, 1934, vol. v, p. 183.
11. Treaty signed March 2, 1936, Department of State Treaty Series No. 945; or 53 Stat. 1807.
12. Treaty signed April 13, 1937; see Foreign Relations, 1937, vol. v, pp. 699 ff. For text, see Department of State Treaty Series No. 932; or 52 Stat. 1457.
13. Executive Agreement signed September 13, 1941, Department of State Executive Agreement Series No. 220; or 55 Stat. (pt. 2) 1348. For correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. v , under Haiti, section entitled “Financial Relations Between the United States and Haiti.”
14. Convention signed September 24, 1940; see ibid., Dominican Republic.