123G861/839
Address Delivered by the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) Before the America-Japan Society at Tokyo on October 19, 1939
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: First of all, permit me to express my great satisfaction on returning from leave of absence to learn that there has been improvement in the health of our beloved President, Prince Tokugawa. I well know that I am reflecting the hopes of all of us in most heartily wishing that he may before long find complete recovery and return to the chair which he so long has occupied with distinction and great helpfulness. I beg that our Chairman today may be good enough to convey to the Prince an expression of this deep feeling.
Your welcome today is genuinely appreciated. Last spring we were going “home” to the United States, and this autumn, when we left America, we were going “home” to Japan. When one has remained for seven years at a post, one can hardly regard it as other than “home”. At any rate, that is the way my wife and I feel about Japan and especially about Tokyo, and that same feeling extends to our friends here, both Japanese and American. To come once again to a gathering of this Society is to come into a homelike atmosphere, and that in itself gives us a very warm feeling. We thank you for your welcome.
I have been told of rumors that have been flitting about here and there to the effect that we were not returning to Japan. If there have been such rumors, they just have been based on speculation, pure and simple, for at no moment has there been the slightest doubt about our returning. Having been on the job here for approximately three years without a day of furlough, I was very considerately given an [Page 20] extra month of leave, over and above the usual sixty days in the United States. Some of you with whom I talked before our departure may remember that I said at that time that I expected to be back in September or October, and here we are, right on schedule. Our plans have undergone no change and no thought of change.
We have had a pleasant and interesting time. Much of our furlough was spent at our place at Hancock in the refreshing hills and woods of New Hampshire where we were surrounded by our three daughters, occasionally some sons-in-law and six grandchildren, which inevitably made me feel something like an old patriarch, but we had time for visits also and we saw both the New York and the Golden Gate worlds fairs which, of course, were thrilling. I visited Washington on three occasions.
With regard to the Worlds Fairs in New York and in San Francisco I think that Japan has every reason to be proud of her pavilions and exhibits. I spent much time studying them in both places. The Japanese pavilion in the New York Fair is of great beauty. The Japanese exhibit in the Division of Pacific Cultures at the Golden Gate International Exposition and the effective way in which it is presented is past all praise. These objects, portraying the historical sequence of Japanese art and culture, have most courteously been lent not only by many of the foremost Japanese collectors, many of them personal friends of mine, but also by the Imperial Household Museum. As Mr. K. Sato wrote in the Official Catalogue of the Department of Fine Arts of the Exposition:
“It will be a surprise to us if you do not read from these material objects the spirit of the race that made them, so like and so different from your own.
“Surely America, newly come to join us on the rim of the Pacific Ocean, will feel the splendid lift of the same tides that wash our beaches.”
Yes, we in America do feel the lift of the same tides that wash the beaches of Japan. I hope that both our nations will always and progressively feel the lift of those tides of friendship. I have returned to Japan to devote all that I have to give, now and in future, to try to inspire new life in those tides.
As for the future, Mrs. Grew and I are going to try to return to the United States as often as possible—every year or two if it is feasible, although such a plan must necessarily depend upon many unpredictable factors and is perhaps just a bit optimistic. But there is no doubt in my mind that an Ambassador can do more helpful work and can more intelligently and effectively represent his Government and can better contribute to clear international understanding upon which good international relations are built when given frequent opportunity [Page 21] for personal contact with his Government and the people of his own country. As I have often said, indeed as I said not long ago before this distinguished Society, an ambassador is essentially an interpreter, an interpreter of official and public opinion as they exist in his own country and in the country of his residence. By going home this year I was able to do a great deal of interpreting of Japan and of Japanese opinion both to my Government and to the American people. A number of addresses were made to important groups and I talked with a large number of people. I hope and believe that my interpretations were fair and accurate. It was made very clear that the Japanese picture has many sides and many angles, and that without a comprehension of these many sides and angles, it is difficult if not impossible for another people far away to arrive at a clear and accurate conception of the basic causes and incentives that lead to Japanese thought and policy and action. Those talks aroused much interest.
I enjoyed several constructive talks with my good friend Ambassador Horinouchi who is ably representing Japan in our country, and with other Japanese visiting or residing in the United States.
In the same way, there can be no doubt that as a result of my stay in the United States and my personal contacts with a large number of Americans, both official and unofficial, my interpretations here of American thought and policy and action are going to be much more complete and accurate than they could have been had this summer’s furlough not taken place. We have a phrase in English “straight from the horse’s mouth.” I never knew why the particular animal chosen was a horse, especially as most horses are generally not very communicative. But the meaning is clear enough. What I shall say in Japan in the ensuing months comes “straight from the horse’s mouth” in that it will accurately represent and interpret some of the current thoughts of the American Government and people with regard to Japan and the Far East. I had the privilege of also conferring repeatedly with the President and with the Secretary of State during my stay at home.
But here I am constrained to pause before passing on, to pause in sadness, in deepest sorrow, yes and in impotent bitterness, at the dreadful holocaust that has broken loose in Europe, a holocaust not of God’s doing but of man’s. That we, in our lifetime, should have to pass through another such frightful disaster seems an intolerable burden for one generation of humanity. I shall not try to deal with that subject today; indeed, what could possibly be said to alter in any infinitesimal degree the blackness of the cloud that has descended upon us? I say “us” advisedly. I pray with all my heart and mind that we in America may be spared from participation again in armed conflict, but in this modern world of ours no nation and no people can emerge [Page 22] unscathed from the effects, direct or indirect, of warfare anywhere. When the structure of international good faith, when the reliance of mankind and government upon the inviolability of the pledged word becomes undermined and collapses, when might makes right and force becomes an instrument of national policy rather than discussion and settlement of disputes by peaceful means, then civilization crumbles also and chaos intervenes.
I turn now to some of the thoughts of the American Government and of the American people with regard to the situation in East Asia in general and to our relations with Japan in particular. It is trite to say—but all too often the fact is overlooked—that in our democratic system the policies and measures of our Government reflect, and inevitably must reflect, public opinion. If therefore in any given case or situation we search for the underlying causation of American policy, or of any specific measure or series of measures taken by our Government, we must first try to analyze the state of public opinion in the United States and the developments which have induced that state of public opinion, factors which in turn have given rise to some specific policy or some specific measure or measures of our Government. In this connection I have not for a moment lost sight of the force of public opinion in Japan.
Obviously American public opinion is frequently divided; seldom is it unanimous. In the face of a divided public opinion, the Government must choose between acting according to its judgment as to what will best serve the interests of the country and withholding action altogether. But when public opinion is unanimous, or nearly unanimous, then governmental policy and action must and will reflect the opinion and wishes of the people as a whole. For the American Government is the servant of the American people. American public opinion with regard to recent and current developments in the Far East is today very nearly unanimous, and that opinion is based not on mere hearsay or on propaganda but on facts.
Among the conditions existing in the United States which impress me more and more vividly each time I return to my country are, first, the freedom which prevails in public discussion, and second, the demand for knowledge of facts and the intelligent appraisal of those facts by men and women in every walk of life. Especially is this true today in regard to foreign affairs. It is not alone the Government official or the student or the business man or the manufacturer or the financier who keeps his finger on the pulse of our foreign relations. This interest—and it is a keen, living interest—extends to the masses—the factory hand, the servant in the house, the taxi driver in the street. In the past few months at home I have been immensely impressed by the intelligent grasp by people in every [Page 23] quarter of what is going on in every corner of the world. I have been drawn into discussion of foreign affairs not only by men and women in important and influential positions but by travelers in the smoking compartment of railroad trains, by the stewards in airplanes, by the men and women behind the counters in the stores and shops, by the attendants at gasoline stations, by the drivers of taxis who were taking me to some destination. And what impressed me most was that these people not only knew what was going on abroad but had formed their own individual opinions of those events and of what the United States should or should not do about it. Those people, mostly, are widely read. My chiropodist, when I entered his room, was reading an important book on Japan, and we discussed that book throughout the session. A farmer in the small New England village where we live lent me another recent book on Japan. In the many talks which I had with many, many people, I received the distinct impression that those people are sufficiently well-informed and sufficiently wide-awake to distinguish between fact and propaganda. I do not suppose that any country in the world is better served today, by press and radio, with accurate foreign information than is the United States. In every country there are of course certain elements of the press inclined toward sensationalism, but the vast majority of the American people today read and demand the despatches and comments of correspondents and commentators of proved reliability for accurate reporting. Propaganda not based on fact, or distorting fact, is anathema to the average American. And the senseless propaganda with which foreign countries sometimes try to influence public opinion in our country does the countries of its origin and the interests of those countries far more harm than good. The average American, knowing the facts, sees through it and will have none of it.
Here, then, is the stuff of which public opinion in the United States is built. It is only through such individual contacts as I enjoyed this summer that one comes to appreciate the tremendous force of public opinion in our country and to realize its fabric and its power. When such opinion tends toward unanimity in any given issue, it is a force to be reckoned with, a force which the Government cannot possibly overlook and will not fail to reflect in its policies and actions.
What am I to say to you today? Would it be the act of a friend of Japan, a friend of the members of this Society, would it be in the interests of Japanese-American relations which this Society steadily labors to build up and improve, if I were to misstate the truth or try to obscure it by painting an inaccurate picture of my observations at home? If an Ambassador is in effect an interpreter, mustn’t [Page 24] he interpret correctly on the basis of facts known to him? And on returning from a long stay in America, would it not insult your intelligence if I were to talk of trivialities? I suppose that there is not a person here who does not know that American public opinion strongly resents some of the things that Japan’s armed forces are doing in China today, including actions against American rights and legitimate interests in China. On that subject public opinion in the United States is unanimous. And, mind you, I know whereof I speak, from personal talks with a very large number of people in diverse walks of life throughout our country, constituting a reliable cross-section of the American public.
If we then accept as a regrettable fact this state of American public opinion, and we must accept it as a fact, then isn’t it from every point of view, especially from the point of view of statesmanship, reasonable and logical that we should in all frankness examine the basic causes of that state of public opinion? I know those causes in general and in detail. It would be harmful to overlook them. I earnestly believe that those causes must be removed and that by their removal only constructive good can come to both our nations. The attainment of such mutually constructive good, needless to say, is and has been and always will be the fundamental purpose of my ambassadorship to Japan.
Before I left for America last May a Japanese friend of mine begged me to tell my friends in America the situation in Japanese-American relations as he conceived it. It ran somewhat as follows:
American rights and interests in China are suffering some minor and unimportant inconveniences in China as a result of Japanese military operations; the Japanese military take every possible precaution to avoid inconvenience to American interests; reports published in the United States in regard to damage to American interests by the Japanese in China are intentionally exaggerated in order to inflame the American people against Japan; in large measure those activities of the Japanese to which Americans object are the result of differences in customs, differences in language, and a legalistic attitude which has been adopted by the United States; the attitude of the Government of the United States in regard to impairment of American rights and interests in the Japanese-occupied areas of China is in large part due to internal political conditions in the United States; in the near future the situation in the occupied areas of China will be so improved that the United States will no longer have any cause for complaint. That was the point of view of my Japanese friend.
Alas, the truth is far otherwise. The facts, as they exist, are accurately known by the American Government. They are likewise known by the American people, and in the interests of the future relations [Page 25] between Japan and the United States those facts must be faced. Only through consideration of those facts can the present attitude of the American Government and people toward Japan be understood; only through consideration of those facts, and through constructive steps to alter those facts, can Japanese-American relations be improved. Those relations must be improved.
Having said all this I do not propose today to deal in detail with the causations which have brought about that feeling in my country. This is not the occasion to enter any “bill of particulars.” Those facts, those difficulties between our nations, are matters for consideration by the two Governments; indeed, some of them are matters which I have been discussing with the Japanese Government during the past two years, and I shall continue to approach these matters. But I believe that the broad outline of those facts and difficulties are known to you. Some of those difficulties are serious.
Now many of you who are listening to me may well be thinking: “There are two sides to every picture; we in Japan also have our public opinion to consider.” Granted. In America, as I have already said, I did my best to show various angles of the Japanese point of view. But here in Japan I shall try to show the American point of view. Without careful consideration of both points of view we can get nowhere in building up good relations. I wish you could realize how intensely I wish for that most desirable end and how deeply I desire, by pure objectivity, to contribute to a successful outcome. Let me therefore try to remove a few utterly fallacious conceptions of the American attitude as I think they exist in Japan today.
One of these fallacies is that the American approach to affairs in East Asia is bound by a purely “legalistic” attitude, a conception which widely prevails in this country today. What is meant by a “legalistic” attitude? If we mean respect for treaties, official commitments, international law, yes; that respect is and always will be one of the cardinal principles of American policy. But the very term “a legalistic attitude”, as it has often been used in my hearing in Japan, seems to imply a position where one cannot see the woods for the trees, where one’s vision of higher and broader concepts is stultified. Let me therefore touch briefly on a few of the cardinal principles of American policy and objectives, moulded to meet the requirements of modern life, which, it is true, are fundamentally based upon but which seem to me far to transcend any purely “legalistic” approach to world affairs.
The American people aspire to relations of peace with every country and between all countries. We have no monopoly on this desire for peace, but we have a very definite conviction that the sort of peace which, throughout history, has been merely an interlude between wars is not an environment in which world civilization can be stably developed [Page 26] or, perhaps, can even be preserved. We believe that international peace is dependent on what our Secretary of State has characterized as “orderly processes” in international dealing.
The American people desire to respect the sovereign rights of other people and to have their own sovereign rights equally respected. We have found by experience that the successful approach to the resolving of international disputes lies not so much in merely abstaining from the use of force as in abstaining from any thought of the use, immediately or eventually, of the methods of force. Let cynics look about them and contemplate the consequences of resort to menacing demands as a process in the conduct of international relations! Is it being purely “legalistic” to put to wise and practical use the finer instincts common to all mankind?
The American people believe that the day is past when wars can be confined in their effects to the combatant nations. When national economies were based upon agriculture and handcraft, nations were to a large extent self-sufficient; they lived primarily on the things which they themselves grew or produced. That is not the case today. Nations are now increasingly dependent on others both for commodities which they do not produce themselves and for the disposal of the things which they produce in excess. The highly complex system of exchange of goods has been evolved by reason of each nation’s being able to extract from the ground or to manufacture certain commodities more efficiently or economically than others. Each contributes to the common good the fruits of its handiwork and the bounties of nature. It is this system of exchange which has not only raised the standard of living everywhere but has made it possible for two or even three persons to live in comfort where but one had lived in discomfort under a simple self-contained economy. Not only the benefits of our advanced civilization but the very existence of most of us depends on maintaining in equilibrium a delicately balanced and complex world economy. Wars are not only destructive of the wealth, ‘both human and material, of combatants, but they disturb the fine adjustments of world economy. Conflict between nations is therefore a matter of concern to all the other nations. Is there then any stultification through “legalistic” concepts when we practice ourselves and urge upon others the resolving of international disputes by orderly processes, even if it were only in the interests of world economy? How, except on the basis of law and order, can these various concepts in international dealing be secured?
The American people believe in equality of commercial opportunity. There is probably no nation which has not at one time or other invoked it. Even Japan, where American insistence on the open door is cited as the supreme manifestation of what is characterized as a “legalistic” [Page 27] American attitude—even Japan, I say—has insisted upon and has received the benefits of the open door in areas other than China, where, we are told, the principle is inapplicable except in a truncated and emasculated form. That highly complicated system of world economy of which I have just spoken is postulated upon the ability of nations to buy and sell where they please under conditions of free competition—conditions which cannot exist in areas where preemptive rights are claimed and asserted on behalf of nationals of one particular country.
I need hardly say that the thoughts which I have just expressed are of universal applicability.
Another common fallacy which I am constrained to mention is the charge that the American Government and people do not understand “the new order in East Asia”. Forgive me if I very respectfully take issue with that conception. The American Government and people understand what is meant by the “new order in East Asia” precisely as clearly as it is understood in Japan. The “new order in East Asia” has been officially defined in Japan as an order of security, stability and progress. The American Government and people earnestly desire security, stability and progress not only for themselves but for all other nations in every quarter of the world. But the new order in East Asia has appeared to include, among other things, depriving Americans of their long established rights in China, and to this the American people are opposed.
There’s the story. It is probable that many of you are not aware of the increasing extent to which the people of the United States resent the methods which the Japanese armed forces are employing in China today and what appear to be their objectives. In saying this, I do not wish for one moment to imply that the American people have forgotten the long-time friendship which has existed between the people of my country and the people of Japan. But the American people have been profoundly shocked over the widespread use of bombing in China, not only on grounds of humanity but also on grounds of the direct menace to American lives and property accompanied by the loss of American life and the crippling of American citizens; they regard with growing seriousness the violation of and interference with American rights by the Japanese armed forces in China in disregard of treaties and agreements entered into by the United States and Japan and treaties and agreements entered into by several nations, including Japan. The American people know that those treaties and agreements were entered into voluntarily by Japan and that the provisions of those treaties and agreements constituted a practical arrangement for safeguarding—for the benefit of all—the correlated principles of national sovereignty and of equality of economic opportunity. The principle of equality of economic opportunity [Page 28] is one to which over a long period and on many occasions Japan has given definite approval and upon which Japan has frequently insisted. Not only are the American people perturbed over their being arbitrarily deprived of long-established rights, including those of equal opportunity and fair treatment, but they feel that the present trend in the Far East if continued will be destructive of the hopes which they sincerely cherish of the development of an orderly world. American rights and interests in China are being impaired or destroyed by the policies and actions of the Japanese authorities in China. American property is being damaged or destroyed; American nationals are being endangered and subjected to indignities. If I felt in a position to set forth all the facts in detail today, you would, without any question, appreciate the soundness and full justification of the American attitude. Perhaps you will also understand why I wish today to exercise restraint.
In short, the American people, from all the thoroughly reliable evidence that comes to them, have good reason to believe that an effort is being made to establish control, in Japan’s own interest, of large areas on the continent of Asia and to impose upon those areas a system of closed economy. It is this thought, added to the effect of the bombings, the indignities, the manifold interference with American rights, that accounts for the attitude of the American people toward Japan today. For my part I will say this. It is my belief, and the belief of the American Government and people, that the many things injurious to the United States which have been done and are being done by Japanese agencies are wholly needless. We believe that real security and stability in the Far East could be attained without running counter to any American rights whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I have tried to give an accurate interpretation of American public opinion, most carefully studied and analyzed by me while at home. The traditional friendship between our two nations is far too precious a thing to be either inadvertently or deliberately impaired. It seems to me logical that from every point of view—economic, financial, commercial, in the interests of business, travel, science, culture and sentiment—Japan and the United States forever should be mutually considerate friends. In the family of nations, as between and among brothers, there arise inevitable controversies, but again and again the United States has demonstrated its practical sympathy and desire to be helpful toward Japan in difficult times and moments, its admiration of Japan’s achievements, its earnest desire for mutually helpful relations.
Please do not misconstrue or misinterpret the attitude which has prompted me to speak in the utmost frankness today. I am moved first of all by love of my own country and my devotion to its interest: [Page 29] but I am also moved by very deep affection for Japan and by sincere conviction that the real interests, the fundamental and abiding interests of both countries, call for harmony of thought and action in our relationships. Those who know my sentiments for Japan, developed in happy contacts during the seven years in which I have lived here among you, will realize, I am sure, that my words and my actions are those of a true friend.
One Japanese newspaper queried, on my return from America, whether I had concealed in my bosom a dagger or a dove. Let me answer that query. I have nothing concealed in my bosom except the desire to work with all my mind, with all my heart and with all my strength for Japanese-American friendship.
Today I have stated certain facts, straightforwardly and objectively. But I am also making a plea for sympathetic understanding in the interests of the old, enduring friendship between our two great nations. In a world of chaos I plead for stability, now and in the long future, in a relationship which, if it can he preserved, can bring only good to Japan and to the United States of America.