The Ambassador in Japan (Warren) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 12—10:50 a.m.]
26. Department’s 10 of January 31, 1  p.m.64 Following from Caldwell February 6, 11 p.m.:
“Minister for Foreign Affairs informed me today in reply to my inquiries that the Japanese delegates at Dairen65 on January 19 presented demands much the same as those reported in my telegram No. 15 of December 22, 9 p.m.66 The Russians consider these demands so unacceptable that since January 19 negotiations have been practically suspended. It is stated by the Minister that the latest demands of the Japanese are essentially the same as their original demands but lacking the reestablishment [of relations?] which at one time the Japanese seemed willing to make.
- The Japanese demand that there must be assurances in the agreement that the Far Eastern Republic will not allow a communistic form of government within its borders.
- The Russians have insisted that a commission be formed to arrange matters this year regarding fishing rights irrespective of the conclusion of any other treaty or agreement between the Far Eastern Republic and Japan. This is to prevent the Japanese repeating their actions of last year. The Russian proposal includes the placing of a representative of Soviet Russia upon this commission. The inclusion of a Soviet representative is objected to by the Japanese who also propose that the commission be formed immediately but that it shall not function until a general agreement or treaty is signed.
- Rights of navigation upon the Sungari and Amur Rivers are insisted upon by the Japanese.
- The Japanese demand the destruction of all Pacific coast fortifications.
- The Japanese also demand that responsibility for the Nikolaievsk massacre be accepted by the Far Eastern Republic, Japanese soldiers to remain in Sakhalin until settlement is made.
The following is the situation with respect to the other Japanese demands reported in my telegram of December 22, 9 p.m.:
The Far Eastern Republic representatives have proposed that where rights acquired by Japanese in Sakhalin were obtained legally and where the Japanese can prove title, such rights be recognized. The Japanese demand to have troops in Russian territory is not being insisted upon. The latest Japanese note does not contain the demand that with respect to industry and commerce Japanese subjects [Page 844]shall have as favorable treatment as citizens of the Far Eastern Republic. However, this demand may be repeated later as the note states that there are a number of points of lesser importance reserved for later discussion.
In commenting upon these demands the Minister for Foreign Affairs contrasted them with the declaration made five days later by the Japanese Ambassador at the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments. The Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to the treaty [omission] to Japan. He fears this may be connected with negotiations to recognize agreement made by Japan to increase and support reactionary Russian military forces in the eastern part of Siberia.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .