File No. 763.72/1392
The Ambassador in Japan (Guthrie) to the Secretary of State
Tokyo December 18, 1914.
[Received January 14 1915.]
No. 170]
Sir: I have the honor to enclose a translation of an interpellation of Mr. Genii Matsuda, a parliamentary member of the opposition, and the reply of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, made on the 9th [Page 208] instant in the lower House, with reference to the question whether Japan had restricted her action in the war by guarantees to America and Great Britain.
Mr. Matsuda at first charged the Cabinet, with having made a guarantee to Great Britain that Kiaochow would be retroceded to China, basing his charge upon an editorial alleged to; have appeared in the London, Times to the effect that the guarantee had given satisfaction to England and America, that Japanese diplomacy assisted Great Britain and feared the United States, and that the guarantee was necessary to dispel suspicion in Australia and America.
The interpellator then asserted that when the occupation of Jaluit Island by the Japanese Fleet was published in America, it provoked a loud, protest, Japan being accused of having violated her promise to limit her sphere of warlike operations; but that as the result of a guarantee from the Japanese Government that the occupation was only temporary, and for strategical, purposes intended to protect commerce and navigation, the feeling against Japan was somewhat softened. Mr. Matsuda added that if such a guarantee was given to the United States, it was a very humiliating one, impairing the independence and sovereignty of Japan. He concluded by asking whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs could deny the statements of Mr. Bryan, Secretary of State, and President Wilson, who had publicly announced that they had received such a guarantee from the Japanese Government.
The Minister briefly replied that he had never given any guarantee to the United States in regard to the South Sea Islands, or made any promise to Great Britain respecting the retrocession of Kiaochow.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
Extract from the Parliamentary Supplement to the “Official Gazette,” December 10, 1914
INTERPOLATION OF MR. MATSUDA
The London Times had an article concluding with the statement that “the guarantee of the retrocession of Kiaochow is a matter of satisfaction to the English people as well as to America.” If you say that the London Times published a falsehood, that is the end of the question. A telegram in regard to this matter should have been received by the Foreign Office. Do you wish to say that the statement in the editorial of the London Times, to the effect that the guarantee of the retrocession of Kiaochow was a matter of satisfaction both to England and to America, was based on a false report? However, judging from conditions existing before and after, I believe to my regret, that the guarantee is not a fact.1 Japanese diplomacy assisted Great Britain it feared the United States—that is what the newspapers in England say. They concluded with the following statement. “Is it not to the interest of Japan to limit the sphere of operations? Is it not necessary in order to dispel the suspicions of Australia and America?” Although the guarantee of the retrocession of Kiaochow is a matter of deep regret to the country, it nevertheless seems that such a pledge has been given to Great Britain. As this point will become an important question in the peace conference, as a matter of caution, I have requested an answer from the, Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard thereto.
[Page 209]The next inquiry concerns the movements connected with Japan’s work of occupation in the South Sea. When our navy occupied Jaluit Island in the South Sea, the public opinion of America became clamorous, and the following statement appeared in the American press, and was at the time telegraphed to Japan. “As soon as the telegram reporting the occupation of Jaluit Island in the Marshall Archipelago by the Japanese Fleet was received in Washington, it provoked a clamorous discussion, to the effect that Japan had broken her guarantee to limit the sphere of warlike action. However, as the result of a subsequent report from Tokyo, stating that the occupation of Jaluit by the Japanese Fleet would not be permanent, and the explanation by Ambassador Chinda that the occupation of the island was only for the purpose of destroying the naval base of Germany, and of protecting commerce and navigation, the feeling against Japan was somewhat softened.” The newspapers at the same time also said that the British Ambassador at Washington was expecting from the British Foreign Office a similar declaration with reference to the movements of Japan. The Foreign Office must also have had such a report.
Again, in reference to our occupation in the South Sea, Mr. Bryan, American Secretary of State, at that time made the following statement. It was just when the discussion became clamorous, with respect to Japan’s breach of the limitation of the sphere of military operations, in regard to which Great Britain had been consulted, that Mr. Bryan made the following statement. “In connection with the movements of Japan in Jaluit Island, German territory, I obtained a guarantee from the Japanese Government, and made it public on the afternoon of the 7th, and said that it was a matter of satisfaction to America. According to the said guarantee the action of Japan in Jaluit Island is a temporary measure taken for purely strategical purposes, etc.” That is what Mr. Bryan said. That is to say, Mr. Bryan announced his satisfaction in having obtained from the Japanese Government the guarantee that it was a military act, that it was a temporary occupation, which had for its purpose the protection of commerce and navigation, and the protection of the safety of the navigation routes of various nations, and that it was not a permanent occupation. This was announced in America on October 7.
Now what did Mr. Wilson., President of the United States, say about this matter? The press states that he said he had obtained a satisfactory guarantee from the Japanese Government in regard to Japan’s action in the Pacific, and that nothing had yet arisen which he considered as likely to create apprehension on the part of the American Government. This was published on October 8.
Mention is made of the public opinion of America, of Ambassador Chinda’s explanation that Japan’s occupation in the South Sea was temporary and not permanent, of Mr. Bryan’s announcement that he had obtained a pledge from the Japanese Government, and again of Mr. Wilson’s statement that he had obtained a guarantee.
Did or did not the Japanese Government give such a guarantee to the American Government? If we admit that such a guarantee was given, I believe that I may positively assert that it is a very humiliating guarantee, impairing the independence and sovereignty of Japan. (Applause—someone exclaims: “A perishing country!”) Did you give such a guarantee? Do you deny the explanation made by Mr. Bryan? Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs deny the statement of Mr. Wilson? The foregoing is my third interpellation.
REPLY OF THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
In regard to the occupation of the South Sea Islands-that Ambassador Chinda had given some guarantee to the American Government, that Mr. Bryan, Secretary of State, had said something—I also have seen published in the newspapers. With reference to the foregoing, however, I definitely declare that I have never given any guarantee to the American Government.
You ask me whether I have given a guarantee to Great Britain in regard to the retrocession of Kiaocbow, and refer to something published in the London Times. I try to read the London Times as much as I can but recently I have been, very busy, and have not been able to read every issue, so that I did not read the editorial to which Mr. Matsuda refers. I do not know what it said, but I have never made any promise to Great Britain in regard to the retrocession of Kiaochow. (Hear, hear!) Whatever may be said in the London Times, the declarations in the Diet of the Imperial Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has been favored with the confidence of His Majesty, must in my opinion be taken as trustworthy.
- The interpolator evidently intended to say, “I believe to my regret that the guarantee is a fact.”—Translator.↩