500.A4a/162
Memorandum by the Secretary to the British Empire Delegation of a Conversation at the Home of the Secretary of State, December 8, 1921, 4:30 p.m.25
Secret
- Present
- the united states of america
- Mr. Hughes
- france
- M. Viviani, accompanied by M. Jusserand
- the british empire
- Mr. Balfour, accompanied by Mr. Malkin and Sir Maurice Hankey
- japan
- Baron Shidehara, Baron Kato, accompanied by M. Saburi
- the united states of america
The discussion took place in regard to the draft outline of an agreement between the United States of America, the British Empire, France and Japan, which is annexed to this memorandum.
Baron Shidehara said that he had prepared a draft of his own, of which he handed copies round.26
Mr. Balfour pointed out that the main difference between Baron Shidehara’s draft and that circulated by Mr. Hughes27 was that Baron Shidehara wished to divide Article I into two parts.
Baron Shidehara explained that the reason for this was that Article I really contained two different ideas. In the first line the High Contracting Parties engage as between themselves to respect the rights mentioned in the preamble. The continuation of the Article referred to the action to be taken in case a controversy should develop on any matter in the region referred to in the preamble. It seemed more logical to divide this into two parts.
Mr. Balfour suggested that Baron Shidehara’s point could be met by ending Article I at the first word of the second line, “rights”, and beginning a new Article with the word “If”.
M. Jusserand suggested it would be a better plan to have a full stop after the word “rights”, and to begin a fresh paragraph of Article I with the word “If”.
This suggestion was adopted.
Baron Shidehara asked if the word “rights” in Article I related only to rights in insular possessions and insular dominions.
Mr. Hughes explained that the agreement had been confined to insular possessions and insular dominions in order to prevent other [Page 14] Powers from claiming the right to associate themselves in this agreement. avoid the difficulties connected with the mainland, especially as to China. There were matters which still required adjustment. The Question of the association of other Powers in the agreement would also undoubtedly be presented. He agreed, however, that even so the word “rights” could be interpreted very broadly. The word “rights” in reference to insular possessions would refer to all the rights which were inherent in territorial possession.
Mr. Malkin pointed out that it would include all the rights of sovereignty, which extended almost to everything relating to those possessions.
Mr. Hughes said that the concept of sovereignty would involve practically all rights. It would be hazardous to try and define them more nearly clearly.
M. Jusserand fully agreed with the text as it stood. He thought if it were amended confusion might be caused in regard to the exact rights relating to mandated territories.
Baron Shidehara then asked if mandated territories were included?
Mr. Hughes replied that the United States of America could not be a party to this arrangement unless the agreement, now in an advanced state of negotiation with Japan relating to the Japanese mandated territories, was completed and included them.
Baron Shidehara asked if mandated territories were included in the words “insular possessions”?
Mr. Hughes said he thought they were.
M. Viviani said that the new nations which were parties to the League of Nations had certain rights in relation to the mandated territories.
Mr. Hughes said that he must make it clear that the rights reforrod to in the mandated territories wore no greater than those which the United States of America admitted in the arrangements which they were now concluding with Japan. He would have to state definitely that the whole of the agreement now under consideration was subject to an arrangement being reached in regard to the mandated territories. To his mind “insular possessions” would include mandated islands. Certain of these rights, in relation to countries that were members of the League of Nations were established by the Covenant. The relations of the United States of America to these rights, however, were not yet defined in any instrument. They would have to be interpreted as they wore so defined.
Mr. Hughes said that he must make it clear that the rights referred to in the mandated islands, so far as the mandate to Japan was concerned, were no greater than those which the United States [Page 15] of America were willing to agree upon in the arrangements which were now being concluded with Japan. He would have to state definitely that the whole of the agreement now under consideration was subject to an arrangement being reached with regard to the mandated islands. To his mind “insular possessions” would include mandated islands. Certain of these rights in relation to countries that were members of the League of Nations were established by the Covenant. The relations of the United States of America to these islands, however, were not yet defined in any instrument. They would have to be interpreted as they were hereafter defined. Mr. Hughes said that he had already explained to Mr. Balfour the position taken by the American Government as to the mandated islands south of the Equator and the United States of America must reserve her position as to all mandated islands until appropriate agreements were concluded.
Baron Shidehara raised the point as to whether “insular possessions” included the main islands of Japan.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the main islands were both a possession and an island, and he thought that the term would have to be interpreted to include the main islands.
Mr. Balfour, on the suggestion of Mr. Malkin, said that if the proposal were adopted to include a preamble setting forth the sovereigns Heads of States in whose name the agreement was concluded, it would include the Emperor of Japan, and there could be no doubt in a technical sense the islands of Japan would be comprised, insomuch as these main islands were part of the insular possessions and insular dominions of the Mikado.
Mr. Hughes said he had not yet discovered whether Baron Shidehara wished Japan to be included or not. He had assumed that he did.
Baron Shidehara said that this was not the case. He would like to exclude the main islands of Japan, since the mainland of none of the other parties to the agreement was included.
Mr. Balfour at once interposed to say that he could not admit that the mainland of Australia and New Zealand was less important than any other part of the British Empire, If the British Islands had happened to be in the Pacific he himself would not have wished to exclude them, and he would feel horrified if Australia and New Zealand were excluded from the scope of the agreement. He asked why Japan wished to exclude the main islands?
Baron Shidehara said that Japanese public sentiment might take umbrage if the mainland of Japan were included and not that of any of the other High Contracting Parties.
[Page 16]Mr. Balfour said it was important there should be no ambiguity on this point.
Mr. Hughes said that what Baron Shidehara desired might be effected by an exchange of notes. He confessed that he had been rather surprised at the desire to exclude the mainland of Japan, but he was disposed not to mind whether it were included or not.
Mr. Balfour said that if the main islands of Japan were excluded people would begin to ask the reason, since these islands were the very centre of one of the four Powers. If a satisfactory reason were not forthcoming they would be sure to try and find some discreditable reason.
Baron Shidehara pointed out that the reason was that the mainland of the United States of America was not included.
Mr. Balfour said he believed that for some purposes Honolulu was considered as part of the main territory of the United States of America.
Mr. Hughes said this was the case, and that the Hawaiian Islands were part of the organised territory of the United States of America. If the United States had happened to be an island in the Pacific he would have desired to include them.
Baron Shidehara asked what was the precise meaning of “island possessions”?
Mr. Hughes said that he thought it would include all territories. He agreed that “insular possessions” was not a good way of describing the mainland of Japan, but if the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand were included, a very formidable case could be made out to show that Japan ought also to be included.
M. Jusserand said that he understood that Japan did not like including her main islands. If she did not want to include them, why was it necessary?
Mr. Hughes said that whatever Baron Shidehara desired he would try and meet him. The most convenient way of doing this would be by an exchange of notes explaining exactly what was included.
Baron Shidehara proposed the use of a term which he thought had been employed in the Root-Takahira Agreement, namely, “outlying territorial possessions”.
Mr. Hughes said that this introduced an ambiguous phrase and he would rather have a precise interpretation stated in a Note.
Baron Shidehara said he had no objection to this. He felt that he would rather exclude the main islands of Japan.
Mr. Balfour said he was unwilling to admit the suggestion, which would be implied by the exclusion of Japan, that the Dominions were in some way a subordinate part of the British Empire. He wished to make it perfectly clear that there could be no possible question of inferiority for Australia and New Zealand.
[Page 17]Mr. Hughes said that the first point to settle was whether Baron Shidehara wished Japan to be included or not. He would hate to suggest anything in the agreement which could be used to raise a question of the comparative importance of Australia and New Zealand. This would be to raise real difficulties.
Baron Shidehara said there were two points upon which he wished to be clear. First, the exclusion of Japan proper, and, second, the inclusion of the mandated islands.
Mr. Hughes said that in regard to the latter he must make his position perfectly clear, namely, that this arrangement did not apply to the Japanese mandated territories until the conclusion of the arrangement now under negotiation between America and Japan.
Baron Shidehara asked if he was right in assuming that the term “insular possessions” was to remain?
Mr. Hughes said he did not want to change it. Mr. Malkin had made a suggestion to change the words to “territories”. If Japan was to be excluded, however, there was no object in this.
Mr. Balfour said he understood the position to be that the language was to remain unaltered, but there was to be an exchange of Notes in regard to the precise meaning.
Mr. Hughes agreed.
Mr. Balfour asked whether the phrase “if there should develop between any two of the High Contracting Parties a controversy on any matter in the above-mentioned region” etc., would not be considered to refer to Japan?
Baron Shidehara said his idea was that the controversies should not be considered to apply to any of the rights in regard to the main islands of Japan.
Mr. Hughes said that under the wording as it stood it would not apply in respect of the territory of France, Scotland or Great Britain, but to any region in the Pacific Ocean.
Baron Shidehara observed, therefore, that it would not be limited merely to the insular possessions and insular dominions.
Mr. Hughes asked if it was not desirable that this phrase should be taken to extend as far as possible to all controversies arising in the whole of that region?
Baron Shidehara asked if, therefore, it would extend, in the United States of America, to the western slope of the Pacific?
Mr. Balfour observed that this was not an island.
Baron Shidehara then said “But it would include the mainland of Japan”.
Mr. Hughes said “not if the main islands of Japan were excluded”.
Mr. Balfour said that he believed the dominions regarded it as a privilege and an advantage to be in this agreement. He rather gathered that Japan regarded it as an insult (Laughter).
[Page 18]Baron Shidehara suggested to insert after the words “controversy on any matter” the following words, “in the above-mentioned insular possessions and insular dominions”. How, he asked, could this apply to Canada?
Mr. Balfour said that Canada would be outside the arrangement, although probably Vancouver would be included. He understood that Canada had no objection to that. Mr. Balfour then asked a question as to the interpretation of the words in Article I “in the above-mentioned region”: would that, he asked, exclude a difficulty arising at sea?
Mr. Malkin said it would.
Mr. Balfour observed that if Japan was threatened by a rehabilitated Russia, under Article II Japan would not be able to invoke this agreement if the main islands were excluded.
M. Jusserand said this was a practical possibility, and that Russia had certain islands in these regions.
Baron Shidehara suggested that Sakhalin Island would be included.
M. Jusserand replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hughes said that if he understood Baron Shidehara correctly, this would be a corollary as regards the main island. Apparently Baron Shidehara did not desire that the arrangement should apply to the main islands. He gathered that his object was to exclude the application of the agreement to any questions which might arise in regard to what Japan considered as matters within the sphere of her own domestic economy.
Baron Shidehara said that this was his point, but also he wished the main islands of Japan to be in the same condition as the territory of the United States of America.
Mr. Hughes said that that could easily be stated in an explanatory interchange of Notes.
Baron Shidehara said he would have no objection to this course.
Mr. Balfour drew attention to the wording of the last clause in the preamble to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance,—“The maintenance of the territorial rights of the High Contracting Parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India and the defence of their special interests in the said regions.” He presumed that that Alliance did refer to the main islands of Japan?
Baron Shidehara agreed.
Mr. Balfour said that although it included the main islands of Japan, it did not include the main territory of Great Britain. Now, apparently, Baron Shidehara contemplated altering that policy.
Baron Shidehara said “Yes, for the purposes of this agreement”. He asked whether, if there were no serious objection, his colleagues would agree to an exchange of Notes?
[Page 19]Mr. Hughes presumed that such an exchange would exclude the main islands of Japan and would refer to the mandated territories.
Mr. Balfour said he gathered that Baron Shidehara wished to exclude all matters that came within the domestic rights of Japan. He felt perfectly certain that the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand would never tolerate any interference with their domestic rights, and he presumed the same would apply to Hawaii.
Mr. Hughes said that America would never tolerate any such interference.
Mr. Balfour explained that he kept reverting to this question because it was not solely of interest to Japan. Baron Shidehara’s proposals would react upon Australia and New Zealand. If Japan were to insist on excluding her main islands there would be an implication that the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand were placed in some sort of inferior position and were accepting some condition to which the main territory of Japan was not subjected. He would at once find himself in difficulties in explaining this.
Mr. Hughes said that if some qualification were needed it would relate not merely to Japan, but should be so framed as to exclude interference with the internal economy of the territories of any of the High Contracting Parties. He himself had assumed throughout that this document could never be construed to permit such interference. If necessary, however, he would be willing to see that stated in some exchange of Notes, and he would prefer this course to any amendment of the document itself.
The point Mr. Balfour made was that this condition should not be applied solely to Japan, but should be of more general application.
Mr. Balfour then read the following formula which had been suggested to him by Mr. Malkin for inclusion in Article I:—
“This power, however, will not apply to any matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of one of the High Contracting Parties”.
His objection to inserting this in the document was that it would tend to undermine the whole basis of documents of this kind.
M. Viviani said it would be better to put it in a Note.
Mr. Hughes said it seemed to him that what Baron Shidehara had in mind was that there might be some interference with matters of domestic policy.
Baron Shidehara said this was not his sole point. His difficulty was that controversies relating to the western slope of the United States of America or Canada would not come under the terms of the arrangement, but that the main islands of Japan would.
[Page 20]Mr. Hughes pointed out that there was a parallel case in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which applied to the main islands of Japan but not to Great Britain.
Baron Shidehara said that this was a totally different case.
Mr. Hughes said that as regards the domestic matter the difficulty could be cleared up by an exchange of Notes.
Mr. Balfour said that Baron Shidehara’s point was that there might be a controversy about the Pacific slope of America or Canada which would not apply in the case of Japan.
Baron Shidehara said this was exactly the point.
Mr. Balfour then asked how he was to meet the argument of Australia and New Zealand, who would say that they were put on a different footing to Japan?
Mr. Hughes said that whether the main islands of Japan were inside the agreement or not, domestic matters at any rate should be excluded.
Mr. Balfour asked whether this would be stated in public session?
Mr. Hughes said he would not wish to refer to it unless other speakers took a line which made it necessary that the whole matter should be explained. What he would like to do would be to include the gist of Mr. Malkin’s draft in an exchange of Notes. He personally would be sorry to go beyond that. He wanted the instrument to be a really useful one, and that any question of real international import should come within its scope.
Baron Shidehara asked whether the regions bordering the Pacific Ocean could not be included in the arrangement, subject to a provision that questions within domestic jurisdiction should be excluded?
Mr. Hughes said that this might perhaps be done. Immigration was a domestic question, and so were tariffs, in the absence of any Treaty, and there was a great variety of questions of that kind which were of a purely domestic order. If, however, questions arose outside the domestic sphere, and were of international importance, at first sight he saw no reason against it, but the agreement must be made to apply to the Pacific only.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that if once the agreement were so drawn as to go beyond the islands and to take in the whole basin of the Pacific, China would be included. He also did not see how, in such a case, South America could be excluded.
Mr. Hughes agreed that it would raise very difficult questions. Chile, for instance, was a great Pacific Power. A great number of questions centred round China. Once the islands regions bordering the Pacific were included, China would expect to participate. For various reasons it was desired to confine this to a quadruple entente. [Page 21] To extend it as proposed, however, would introduce great complications in which many nations would be concerned. So far as international questions relating to California and the western slope of America were concerned, he did not feel any special objection, but he saw that it was very undesirable to complicate it by bringing in other nations.
M. Viviani pointed out that Indo-China would be included. Up to now France had agreed to exclude it, but if China and Siberia were introduced very many nations would expect to intervene.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that Chile had about 3,000 miles of coastline.
M. Jusserand said that Indo-China was the chief French interest in China, and up to now France had agreed to exclude it. Their island possessions were of less importance, but it would be better to confine it to the islands. He asked if Singapore would be included?
Mr. Balfour said that he always regarded Singapore as belonging rather to the Indian Ocean than to the Pacific. For himself he was inclined to the solution proposed by the Secretary of State, namely, that the gist of Mr. Malkin’s draft should be included in the form of a Note. He could not accept the responsibility of extending the arrangement to the territories bordering on the Pacific.
Mr. Hughes agreed that this was altogether impossible.
M. Jusserand asked if Mr. Malkin’s draft set forth in the form of a Note would not satisfy Baron Shidehara?
Baron Shidehara said there would be difficulties in Japan.
Mr. Hughes said that if the matter was included in a separate Note he thought that he would be more exposed to the criticism of having been unduly cautious than would Baron Shidehara.
Baron Shidehara asked for an adjournment to consider the question overnight.
Mr. Hughes agreed to this.
Baron Shidehara then suggested to include in Article I, line 7, after the word “shall”, the words “in mutual agreement with each other”. He explained that his object in making this proposal was that if a Power was threatened by the aggressive action of another Power it might prefer, instead of calling a Conference, to settle the question by some other method, for example, arbitration.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that the phrase in Article I “which is not satisfactorily settled by diplomacy” covered this point. Resort would be had to every device of diplomacy before invoking the contemplated agreement, and such devices would, of course, include arbitration. Arbitration was part of the diplomatic methods.
Baron Shidehara said that in this case he would withdraw his proposal.
[Page 22]Mr. Hughes then summed up the proposal position by stating that an adjournment would be made until 10 a.m. on the following morning. He asked the Japanese Delegates carefully to consider the proposal to have a collateral exchange of Notes setting forth that the provisions of this arrangement would not apply to any matter which by international law is solely within the jurisdiction of one of the High Contracting Parties, and excluding the main islands of Japan from the scope of the agreement.
It was agreed—
That no communication in regard to this meeting should be made to the Press.
-
No agreed official minutes of this conversation were made. The American delegation used the memorandum prepared by Sir Maurice Hankey.
The file copy of this memorandum bears corrections by Secretary Hughes. Words which he crossed out are indicated by canceled type; words which he inserted are printed in italics. Attached to the memorandum is the following note of Jan. 16, 1922, from Sir Maurice Hankey to Mr. Hughes: “I return herewith your copies of Notes of Conversations. I have carefully noted the corrections.”
↩ - Not printed.↩
- Printed as an annex hereto.↩