793.94/6648
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Extract]
No. 751
Tokyo, April 20, 1934.
[Received May
5.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my telegram No.
71 of April 18, 5 p.m., and to the Department’s telegram No. 51 of April 18,
6 p.m.,1 regarding the
statement issued by the Foreign Office defining Japanese policy toward the
rendering of assistance to China by other countries, and to enclose herewith
a copy of the English translation of the statement, issued by the Bureau of
Information and Intelligence of the Foreign Office. It will be observed that
this translation does not differ in any essential respect from the
translation cabled to the New York Herald Tribune by
its correspondent in Tokyo. The translation issued by the Foreign Office is
labelled as “An English translation unofficially issued by the Foreign
Office of the unofficial statement issued by the Foreign Office on April
17”.
The story of the statement, as far as the Embassy can ascertain, is as
follows: On the afternoon of Tuesday, April 17th, some newspaper
correspondents questioned Mr. Amau, the Chief of the Bureau of Information
and Intelligence of the Foreign Office, regarding the reported opposition of
the Japanese Government to assistance from other countries to China. Mr.
Amau went to his files and produced a document in Japanese which appeared to
one of the correspondents (Mr. Babb, of the Associated Press) to be in the
form of an instruction addressed to the Japanese Minister in China. Mr. Amau
then made, orally, a rough translation of the document into English. He
stated that his translation was unofficial, but that the document had
received the approval of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Later that
evening, he issued to the Japanese press a statement in Japanese, labelled
“unofficial”, which was translated and cabled to various newspapers by
correspondents in Tokyo. As reported in my telegram No. 71, the Tokyo
correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune cabled a
complete translation of the statement to his newspaper. On the morning of
Wednesday, April 18th, in reply to questioning by
[Page 224]
the correspondents, Mr. Amau elaborated somewhat on
the subject and observed that the statement issued the night before “could
be considered as official”, and that a summary would be sent to Japanese
diplomatic officers to be conveyed to the governments to which they are
accredited “if necessary”. He then promised the correspondents a translation
into English of the statement, as translations of Japanese into English may
easily differ considerably and thereby convey a wrong impression. On the
morning of the 19th the translation was issued, but, as stated above, as “an
English translation unofficially issued by the Foreign Office of the
unofficial statement …”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure]
Unofficial Statement by the Japanese Foreign Office,
April 17, 1934
The following is an English translation unofficially issued by the
Japanese Foreign Office of the unofficial statement issued by the
Foreign Office on April 17, 1934, known as the “Amau Statement”:
Owing to the special position of Japan in her relations with China, her
views and attitude respecting matters that concern China, may not agree
in every point with those of foreign nations: but it must be realized
that Japan is called upon to exert the utmost effort in carrying out her
mission and in fulfilling her special responsibilities in East Asia.
Japan has been compelled to withdraw from the League of Nations because
of their failure to agree in their opinions on the fundamental
principles of preserving peace in East Asia. Although Japan’s attitude
toward China may at times differ from that of foreign countries, such
difference cannot be evaded, owing to Japan’s position and mission.
It goes without saying that Japan at all times is endeavoring to maintain
and promote her friendly relations with foreign nations, but at the same
time we consider it only natural that, to keep peace and order in East
Asia, we must even act alone on our own responsibility and it is our
duty to perform it. At the same time, there is no country but China
which is in a position to share with Japan the responsibility for the
maintenance of peace in East Asia. Accordingly, unification of China,
preservation of her territorial integrity, as well as restoration of
order in that country, are most ardently desired by Japan. History shows
that these can be attained through no other means than the awakening and
the voluntary efforts of China herself. We oppose therefore any attempt
on the part of China to avail herself of the influence of any other
country in order to resist
[Page 225]
Japan: We also oppose any action taken by China, calculated to play one
power against another. Any joint operations undertaken by foreign powers
even in the name of technical or financial assistance at this particular
moment after the Manchurian and Shanghai Incidents are bound to acquire
political significance. Undertakings of such nature, if carried through
to the end, must give rise to complications that might eventually
necessitate discussion of problems like fixing spheres of influence or
even international control or division of China, which would be the
greatest possible misfortune for China and at the same time would have
the most serious repercussion upon Japan and East Asia. Japan therefore
must object to such undertakings as a matter of principle, although she
will not find it necessary to interfere with any foreign country
negotiating individually with China on questions of finance or trade, as
long as such negotiations benefit China and are not detrimental to the
maintenance of peace in East Asia.
However, supplying China with war planes, building aerodromes in China
and detailing military instructors or military advisers to China or
contracting a loan to provide funds for political uses, would obviously
tend to alienate the friendly relations between Japan and China and
other countries and to disturb peace and order in East Asia. Japan will
oppose such projects.
The foregoing attitude of Japan should be clear from the policies she has
pursued in the past. But, on account of the fact that positive movements
for joint action in China by foreign powers under one pretext or another
are reported to be on foot, it is deemed not inappropriate to reiterate
her policy at this time.
