File No. 763.72/1391
The Ambassador in Japan (Guthrie) to the Secretary of State
Tokyo, December 12, 1914.
[Received January 14, 1916.]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a translation of the reply of Baron Kato, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to an interpolation on Chino–Japanese relations, made by a member of the opposition in the lower House on the 8th instant.
Answering inquiries in regard to the disposition of Kiaochow the Minister denied the existence of any agreement with any foreign nation by which Japan was bound to retrocede that territory to China. He stated that the question whether Kiaochow will be returned, and whether Japan will succeed to Germany’s rights in Shantung, would be left to future negotiations.
The Minister, moreover while reiterating the adherence of Japan to the preservation of the territorial integrity of China, expressed the desire of the present cabinet like its predecessors to strengthen her foothold in Manchuria and Mongolia.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
Extract from the Parliamentary Supplement to the “Official Gazette,” December 9, 1914—Speech of the Minister for Foreign Affair (Baron Kato)
Mr. Ogawa has made a verbose interpellation about all sorts of questions. The first inquiry was whether the Government has any intention of effecting a fundamental solution of the Chinese question. Although on the face of the words this question seems simple, it involves a deep meaning, and may be regarded from several viewpoints. According to Mr. Ogawa the preservation of the territorial integrity of China has been maintained as the continuous policy of our Government regardless of China’s wishes in the matter. This policy was not initiated by the present Government, but has existed for several years. The cabinet supported by the Seiyukwai, of which Mr. Ogawa is a member, took the same attitude in regard to it. In this respect, therefore, the present Government has not done anything new. We are constantly exerting our efforts with a view to realizing to the fullest extent the preservation of the territorial integrity of China and of maintaining the most cordial relations with that country. Mr. Ogawa said that the Chinese Government and people are all antagonistic to Japan. (Mr. Ogawa: I did not say “antagonistic.”) I, however, cannot regard it as so. He also said that the anti-Japanese feeling is very prevalent in China. (Mr. Ogawa: I did not say “antagonistic.” You must have misheard.) I may have misheard, but that is the way in which I heard it. China has an immense area and a large population. Naturally there must be all sorts of people, but I cannot regard the attitude of the Chinese Government as anti-Japanese. I am confident that just as our Government is constantly exerting its efforts to maintain cordial relations with China, so the Chinese Government is exerting its efforts to the same end. In regard to Chinese newspapers which publish articles prejudicial to Japan, formerly there were indications that they existed to a considerable extent, but our Government duly called the attention of the Chinese authorities to the fact. As a result the Peking Government took various measures, and if the cases have not entirely disappeared, they have certainly lessened in number.
The second interpellation was about the retrocession of Kiaochow. I believe it was whether Kiaochow would be returned or not, or whether there was any agreement necessitating its retrocession. Whether Kiaochow will be restored or not is a question for the future; two-day is not the time to make a definite [Page 207] declaration. As to whether there is any agreement necessitating the retrocession of Kiaochow, I can state definitely that there is no such agreement, either with any European or American nation or with China.
The next question was why the ultimatum was sent to Germany. The reason for sending the ultimatum was that if by peaceful means we could cause Germany to evacuate Kiaochow, and make her withdraw her fleet from Oriental waters, that would have been the best thing we could do. Although this seemed extremely difficult, the Government decided that it was proper to try peaceful means first, and therefore took this step. (Mr. Ogawa: What did you mean by inserting the words “with the purpose of returning”?) The motive for inserting the words” with the purpose of returning” was that, if Germany returned the place peacefully, there would be no reason for Japan’s taking it. The object was to expel Germany from the Orient, because with a base there, she would be a perpetual menace to the peace of the Far East. It would therefore have been only natural to return the place to China, which was the original owner thereof. For Japan to cause Germany upon her advice to restore the place to China, had the same purport as the action of Germany, which some years ago caused Japan upon her advice to return Liaotung.
You further asked what would have happened, if Germany had peacefully returned the territory to China in obedience to our ultimatum, although as a matter of fact she did not. In my opinion nothing could have been so excellent as for her to return it without the hostile action that has since taken place. Unfortunately, however, she refused to listen to our terms.
The next inquiry was whether China would have fulfilled the conditions of the treaty relating to the leased territory of Kiaochow in case Germany had returned it to China. Such a question would never have arisen, if Germany had restored the place to. China unconditionally and without compensation, as was stipulated in our ultimatum, which you will probably recall.
You then asked whether Japan was content with the condition in which she to-day finds herself in Manchuria and Mongolia. Of course there are still many things to be desired in Manchuria and Mongolia, but this state of affairs has not arisen to-day for the first time. It has constantly existed before and after the Russo-Japanese war, and still continues to exist. The present Cabinet like its predecessors, when an available opportunity occurs, wishes to exert its best efforts, and to strengthen Japan’s foothold there as far as possible. I wish you to understand that this is a hope cherished by this Cabinet.
In reference to your next inquiry, whether Great Britain has taken over from Germany the northern end of the Chinp’u railway, I saw such a report in the newspapers. I have received no authoritative advices to that effect, and although I have made some investigation of the matter, I do not discover the existence of any such fact.
The next matter concerned the Weiyen railway, and the project of certain Britishers and other foreigners—not only British, but also other foreigners—to construct a line connecting Chefoo and a certain point on the Shantung Railroad. I investigated the matter, and to be sure, found that such a plan had in part been made by some people. However, if the present circumstances—the condition of the money market and the state of restlessness in Shantung—may be taken into consideration, it is not at all likely that the project can be carried out.
As to whether Japan will succeed to the rights of Germany in Shantung, that will be left to future negotiations, and no definite statement can be made in regard thereto at the present time.