893.51/2857
The Japanese Embassy to the Department of State
Aide-Memoire
It appears that the Chinese Government recently requested the American Legation for explanation on the actual conditions of the plan of the Financial Consortium. The question formed the subject of discussion at the conference of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Four Powers at Peking on June 25th.
The Japanese Minister under instructions from Tokio expressed readiness to communicate in confidence to the Chinese Government the Draft Agreement of the Consortium33 and the text of the notes exchanged between Mr. Kajiwara and Mr. Lamont under date of May 11th last.34 He pointed out that the Consortium could not be regarded as formally in existence, pending confirmation of the Agreement of that organization at the conference of the Financial Groups of the Four Powers to be held in New York in September next; neither had the Kajiwara–Lamont correspondence been, so far as was known, officially accepted by the British and French Groups [Page 546] and approved by the respective Governments. Having regard to this situation, Mr. Obata proposed to make it a condition of the communication to the Chinese Government that the whole documents in question should for the present be treated as being of a confidential nature and not for publication.
On the other hand, the American, British and French Representatives were of the opinion that the present request of the Chinese Government being primarily intended to obtain information on the final outcome of the question of reservations made by Japan respecting Manchuria and Mongolia, it would not be necessary to communicate the Draft Agreement of the Consortium, but that the Kajiwara–Lamont correspondence should be officially made known to the Chinese Government as free for publication. It was also suggested by the three Representatives that in so communicating the Kajiwara–Lamont correspondence, it might be well to explain that the Japanese Group had finally abandoned its claim to have Manchuria and Mongolia reserved for Japan’s exclusive activities.
The Japanese Government hold to the view that in order to bring the true aims and intentions of the Consortium to the just appreciation of the Chinese Government, it would be important to communicate the Draft Agreement of the Consortium, and that by informing the Chinese Government only of the correspondence which passed between Mr. Kajiwara and Mr. Lamont respecting the question of Manchuria and Mongolia, an erroneous impression might be created in Chinese minds. Furthermore, the suggested explanation that in the course of the recent negotiations, the Japanese Group claimed to have Manchuria and Mongolia reserved for Japan’s exclusive activities is wholly inaccurate. No such claim has ever been advanced, and the proposition which Japan made and finally withdrew relates solely to the question of the formula intended to reduce to writing the general principles which had already been recognized by all the interested Governments.
It is evident that the Kajiwara–Lamont notes can only be properly made known to China upon mutual consent of the parties to the documents. So far as the Japanese Group is concerned, it has no objection to the communication of the notes being confidentially made to the Chinese Government. It is not clear that any arrangement for such communication has already been made with Mr. Lamont. Without being assured on this point, the Diplomatic Representatives at Peking would not be justified in communicating of their own accord the correspondence in question to the Chinese Government.
In any case the settlement of the entire question respecting the Consortium remains to be finally and formally confirmed at the [Page 547] forthcoming conference in New York, and in the meantime, it does not seem proper for any of the Diplomatic Representatives at Peking to make official communication to China, and to authorize free publication, of the documents pertaining to the arrangements of the Consortium.
- For text of draft agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. i, p. 439.↩
- Post, pp. 555, 556.↩