751G.94/236
Memorandum by the Ambassador in Japan (Grew)
An appointment was made with Mr. Matsuoka on the afternoon of September 20, after the Department’s telegram (357, September 19, 9 p.m.) had been received and decoded, and I precisely acted upon the instructions of the Department.
Mr. Matsuoka in reply said that apart from some minor changes, the particulars of which were not mentioned, the reports are correct that an ultimatum had been presented to the Governor General of Indochina by General Nishihara. The situation was then explained to be as follows, by the Minister:
The French Ambassador, under instructions of the French Government, and the Japanese Government on August 30 had signed an agreement in Tokyo. Provisions of the agreement were inter alia for the movement of troops of Japan through Indochina and the use temporarily of airports. The Governor General of Indochina was on September 6 ready to sign an agreement which would have implemented the agreement signed in Tokyo on August 30, but he refused for reasons not evident to the authorities of Japan and obstructed the implementation of the agreement signed in Tokyo. The Japanese Government felt obliged, although with reluctance, to ask the French Government whether the actions of the Governor General were subject to control by the French Government, since the Governor General continued to be uncooperative, and whether on the basis of the agreement signed in Tokyo the French Government was exhibiting good faith. The French Government said that it was, and as evidently the Governor General was not acting in good faith and as the Japanese authorities were aware that to foreign Consuls stationed in Indochina the Governor had boasted that he was using obstructive tactics, the Japanese ultimatum reported was necessarily presented.
The purpose of the measures taken was, said the Minister, to enable the Japanese forces to attack Chiang Kai-shek and to bring peace to China. As soon as hostilities have ceased, he said, the Japanese forces would be withdrawn at once; the integrity and sovereignty of Indochina would be accorded full respect, and as a consequence there would be no interference in East Asia with the status quo. The Minister said that he, Prince Konoye, and other Government members were representative of a minority opinion in Japan and that it was their determination that Japan should not oppress, exploit or interfere with other countries’ integrity. He said that a struggle was taking place against extreme elements within the country on this issue. My interruption at this point was to the effect that clauses pertaining to commerce and economics in Indochina were within the scope of the agreement. No [Page 296] denial was made to my statement but I was assured that exploitation would not ensue.
The terms of the agreement between France and Japan signed on August 30 were confidential, said the Minister, and their divulgence by either of the signatories would nullify them. He said he could confidentially tell me, however, that France had broached the subject first and a request was made for a renewal of guarantees pertaining to the integrity of Indochina based on the agreement betweeen France and Japan which was negotiated at approximately the same time as the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was concluded.8 He did not recall the exact date but said that the agreement was in effect and registered with the League of Nations. (This presumably is the agreement of June 10, 1907, between France and Japan.9) The Minister was interrupted with my question as to what country’s encroachments France desired guarantees against. Mr. Matsuoka said that this was a moot question. He went on then to say that permission had been asked by Japan for the movement of forces across Indochina and for the use temporarily of airports as “compensation” for complying with the French request. This information was given me in confidence, he emphasized, and its accuracy would of necessity be denied in event of publicity.
The Minister talked lengthily, but in spite of this and his illogical reasoning the meaning of his remarks is reported to the Department with all possible precision. The Minister upon the conclusion of his remarks left at once to fulfill another engagement and I could say only that if Japanese troops moved into Indochina my Government would regard it emphatically as an infringement of the status quo which the Japanese Government had already pledged to preserve, and that a further statement of the attitude of my Government was reserved until consideration had been given to my report.
I presented to the Minister the substance of the Department’s 355, September 18, 6 p.m.,10 which replied to the oral statement of the Vice Minister to me of September 14, before I left.