711.94/20666/9
Memorandum Prepared for the Secretary of State85
I
The outline of proposals presented on April 985a by John Doe on behalf of his associates is in a number of respects less promising from point of view of the principles and policies of the United States than previous drafts. To illustrate:
- (a)
- Previous drafts displayed much more of a multilateral attitude than does the present proposal, which relates almost exclusively to arrangements affecting primarily two countries, the United States and Japan. The elimination of emphasis on multilateral rights and interests affords distinctly less promise that rights and interests of all the various nations concerned in the Pacific area would be respected.
- (b)
- The statement in the present proposal as to Japan’s relationship to the tripartite alliance shows less willingness on Japan’s part than is shown in previous drafts to divorce itself in fact from the alliance. In fact, the wording of the present proposal on this point does not go beyond what Japanese leaders have affirmed publicly on many occasions.
- (c)
- The present proposal, in the section describing possible peace terms between China and Japan, contains those words of ominous connotation “joint defense against communist activities”. In previous drafts there was expressed provision that the Chinese Government would itself assume responsibility for suppression of communistic activities within Chinese territory. The wording of the present proposal would permit Japan to demand, as it has consistently demanded for at least five years, the right to station Japanese troops in China for the purpose indicated. With such a provision, the present proposal with regard to a settlement of the conflict between China and Japan represents no recession in fact from the terms embodied in the treaty between Japan and the Wang Ching-wei regime.
- (d)
- Under section numbered IV, “Naval, aerial and Mercantile Marine relations in the Pacific”, subsection (a), there is a provision which recalls vividly something that the Japanese Government has been striving for for years, namely, that a line be drawn in the Pacific [Page 136] Ocean at the 180th meridian, that that part of the ocean lying eastward of that line be regarded as the sphere of the United States Navy, and that that part lying westward of that line be regarded as the sphere of the Japanese Navy.
- (e)
- In the same section numbered IV, subsection (c), there is an extremely equivocal provision for the release to the United States of a certain percentage of Japanese merchant tonnage. Previous drafts, on the contrary, contain express provision for release of Japanese merchant tonnage for the carrying of supplies to Great Britain.
- (f)
- Previous drafts contain definite provision for stopping Japan’s trade with Germany. The present draft contains no such provision.
II
The comment made by Mr. Hornbeck in his memorandum of April 7 describes succinctly the fundamental question presented. For convenience of reference, that comment is repeated, as follows:
[Here follows quotation of comment in paragraph numbered 2, “Regarding Section ‘III. China Conflict’”, printed on page 124.]
III
It is suggested that you ask the Japanese Ambassador to call; that you tell him that you understand that he has been collaborating to some extent with some of his nationals in preparation of proposals directed toward the improvement of relations between the United States and Japan; that in reference to this whole question of relations between our two countries there are, in the opinion of this Government, certain fundamental questions which present themselves for consideration. It is suggested that you then raise with the Ambassador questions along the lines set forth in the attached statement.
It is believed that you should decline at this stage to be drawn into discussion of the John Doe proposals as such or of particular aspects of those proposals.
- Notation on file copy: “Memorandum of comment by FE on proposals presented on April 9, 1941, by ‘John Doe’.”↩
- Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, p. 398.↩