[Enclosure]
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Far
Eastern Republic (Janson) to the Japanese
Minister of Foreign A fairs (Uchida)
The Government of the Far Eastern Republic has been informed that on
January 23rd, when the Siberian question was being discussed
[Page 845]
by the Committee on Far
Eastern Affairs at the Washington Conference on the Limitation of
Armament, Baron Shidehara stated that the Japanese Delegation was
authorized to declare that Japan had decided on a fixed and settled
policy in respect to Russia’s integrity, to observe the principle of
non-interference with Russia’s domestic affairs and also the
principle of equal trade opportunity for all nations in every part
of the Russian possessions.
The Government of the Far Eastern Republic expresses deep
satisfaction with the principles of Japan’s policy as outlined in
Baron Shidehara’s statement. The Government of the Far Eastern
Republic believes that these principles must be made the foundation
for any future relations between Japan and the Far Eastern Republic
and hopes that the Japanese Government will be guided by these
principles in settling the question of the evacuation of Japanese
troops and in discussing the agreement between the Japanese Imperial
Government and the Far Eastern Republic at Dairen.
To be exact and explicit the Government of the Far Eastern Republic
must, however, state that the proposed Japanese draft of agreement
consisting of seventeen articles and three supplementary ones
presented on September 26th, 1921, is not in accord with the
principles declared by Baron Shidehara concerning non-interference
in domestic affairs and the principle of equal opportunities for all
nations. Likewise these principles are in contradiction with the
verbal note presented by the Japanese Delegation to the Far Eastern
Republic Delegation at Dairen on January 15th, 1922, embodying
Japan’s final conditions of agreement.
The Government of the Far Eastern Republic believes that the
systematic assistance rendered by the Japanese authorities to
Russian counter-revolutionaries in the Maritime Province cannot be
regarded as consistent with the declaration regarding
non-interference in Russian affairs.
The Government of the Far Eastern Republic has definite information
that the Japanese military command, besides the arms previously
delivered to the so-called Merkulov69 army, also supplied it for the Khabarovsk
attack with 12,000 rifles, 6 artillery guns, 50 machine guns and
other materials and supplies.
A considerable quantity of Remington rifles and other arms were in
the Vladivostok military stores when the Far Eastern Republic’s
authority extended to Vladivostok. These stores were controlled by
Japanese forces and the Japanese military command refused to deliver
them to the authorities of the Far Eastern Republic. After
Merkulov’s coup d’état the Japanese command
continued to guard
[Page 846]
these
stores and the Japanese Government’s diplomatic representatives at
Dairen repeatedly assured the Government of the Far Eastern Republic
that under no circumstances would the arms be delivered to military
organizations in the Maritime Province, hostile to the Far Eastern
Republic.
However, these arms have been distributed among counter-revolutionary
organizations. This is proved by the presence of a great number of
rifles of the above make and origin in the hands of
counterrevolutionary detachments near Khabarovsk where the armoured
train “Orlik” which was previously under Japanese control was also
found.
The activities of the Japanese occupationary forces on the territory
of the Far Eastern Republic are incompatible with the avowed
principles. The following incidents may serve as illustrations: On
February 6th, a Japanese detachment of 50 men occupied the village
of Brovnichi on the Suchan River and after searches arrested several
Russian peasants. In the village of Spaskoye, the Japanese commander
requested that the priest of that village obey his rude, insolent
demands and after arresting him, beat him severely. These and a
series of similar incidents can be quoted as characteristic of the
actions of the Japanese officials on the territory of the Far
Eastern Republic occupied by the Japanese. No steps have been taken
by the Japanese Government regarding the evacuation of the Maritime
and Saghalien Provinces. Despite the Japanese Government’s numerous
statements, its troops continue to occupy Russian territory and lately, it has been noticed that their
numbers are increasing.
The Government of the Far Eastern Republic believes that even
disregarding the Japanese officials’ behaviour and their treatment
of the Russian population, the mere presence of Japanese troops on
Russian territory cannot be regarded as respect for Russia’s
territorial integrity nor the principle of non-interference.
The Government of the Far Eastern Republic wishes to receive a
statement of the Japanese Government whether it considers the above
stated facts as consistent with the principles of territorial
integrity, non-interference and equal opportunity for all nations on
Russian territory, or whether Baron Shidehara’s statement is
contrary to the Japanese Government’s policy in the Russian Far
East.
Janson
Chita, February 10th,
1922.
