862i.73/29
Memorandum by Mr. Norman H. Davis22 of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador (Shidehara)
The Ambassador said he desired to understand clearly just what my previous proposal had been regarding the disposition and operation of the ex-German cables in the Pacific. I told him my suggestion had been: (1) that the ownership of the cable from Guam [Page 277] to Yap should be ceded to the United States; (2) that the cable from Yap to Menado be ceded to Holland in settlement of all Dutch interests in the three cables; and (3) that the Yap–Naba–Shanghai cable be ceded to Japan.23
That the above division should be made upon the understanding that the owners of the three respective cables would then have complete control of the operation of their cables at both ends; that the United States and Holland should not only operate their cables at Yap but that there should be no supervision, control or tax imposed, and every right extended to the employees who might reside at Yap. Furthermore, that a satisfactory traffic arrangement should be made whereby the Yap–Naba–Shanghai cable could be used for, service through to China which might be desired by the Guam–Yap line.
The Ambassador then wished to know if Japan consented to the above arrangement whether that would satisfy all the demands of the United States in respect to Yap and these cables. I replied that this would only meet our demand regarding these specific ex-German cables, but not our demands regarding the status of the Island of Yap. He asked what else we would want. I reiterated our position that Yap should not go to any single Power; that it should be internationalized, at least for cable purposes, and that the United States had never consented to the assignment of Yap under mandate to Japan, nor to the terms of the mandate under which Japan should hold the mandate over any of the German Islands north of the Equator. I then told him it was unfortunate that his Government should contend that the Government of the United States, even on a technicality, had ever consented to Japan having the mandate over Yap, because such a contention could not prosper and it would merely result in the Japanese Government being charged by its opponents with giving in to the United States. I reiterated what I had previously told him that President Wilson had specifically and officially stated that he never consented to such a mandate, and, assuming for the sake of argument that the alleged decision of May seven might be construed as conferring upon Japan the mandate over Yap, this necessarily would have been subject to subsequent agreement as to the terms of the mandate, and that this Government has never consented to such terms without which there can be no definitive agreement.
The Ambassador then said he was very anxious to get this matter settled, and agreed that the longer it was delayed the more difficult it will be. He therefore wondered if a compromise could not be reached whereby we would consent to Japan having the mandate over Yap upon conditions which would satisfy our desires regarding [Page 278] cable facilities. He said his Government must necessarily consider public opinion, and would wish to avoid the appearance of being forced to give in to the United States. I said that I might be inclined to recommend that the island be internationalized but that Japan have the nominal mandate over Yap as agents of the interested powers, upon conditions, however, which would in fact internationalize the island; that the island should not be fortified and nothing done which would in any way interfere with cable communications, and that the United States, Holland, and any other Power should have free access to the island for the landing and operating of cables without any supervision, control or tax on the messages or properties. After considerable discussion he said that he was not authorized to make any such proposal by his Government, but that he thought it would be easier for his Government to agree to such an arrangement provided it could be presented to the Diet in such a way as to avoid being criticised for giving in to the United States, and that it occurred to him that this could be done if we would consent to Japan having the right to land and operate cables on some American island, such as we had agreed with England and Italy. I told him the best way to do this would be for Japan to join with England and Italy and the United States in the agreement reached by the delegates of the three latter countries in the Cable Conference for a recommendation to the respective Governments to the effect that any unfortified island owned by such Governments might, upon application, be used for the landing of a cable by one of the other three Governments. He thought this would not suit the purposes as his Government would not like to enter into such a general arrangement. I told him we would not consent to any such stipulation in connection with a settlement of the Yap controversy, because this might be considered as a quid pro quo for a concession from Japan which we do not for a moment admit that Japan alone has the right to grant or refuse. He said he was quite willing to have two distinct agreements, and not link this with Yap. I told him that I would be glad to recommend any reasonable arrangement which would assist his Government in meeting our views regarding Yap, but that as far as the Secretary of State could go, if willing to do so, would be to recommend a reciprocal arrangement for the granting of a permit to Japan, as he would to any other Power, and by Japan to the United States, to land and operate a cable on an unfortified American or Japanese island, but without, any relation to Yap. The Ambassador said that Japan is made up of islands. He said he would communicate further with his Government, and I told him I would have a talk with the Secretary of State [Page 279] and ascertain if he would be inclined to go even so far as I had indicated.
The California Japanese question was then raised.24 I told the Ambassador I was under the impression that the Secretary of State had not as yet had an opportunity to study the recommendations of Ambassador Morris regarding a settlement of this question,25 and that I did not know what his position would be in the matter. I also said, however, that if this question regarding Yap is settled satisfactorily and out of the way it would undoubtedly make it easier for the Secretary of State to deal with the California question in accordance with the views which he may take after a study of the question.
- Under Secretary of State to Mar. 7, 1921. The memorandum was received in the Department of State as an enclosure to Mr. Davis’s letter of Mar. 18, 1921, to the Secretary of State (not printed).↩
- For the agreement relating to the operation of the Yap–Naba–Guam cable, see pp. 307–313.↩
- For papers relating to this subject, see pp. 319–549.↩
- See the concluding section of the communication of Jan. 25, 1921, from the Ambassador in Japan, temporarily in the United States, to the Acting Secretary of State, p. 323.↩