711.94/21337/18

Memorandum of a Conversation

The Japanese Ambassador, accompanied by Colonel Iwakuro and Mr. Wikawa, called at 8:30 p.m. at the Secretary’s apartment in accordance with an arrangement made at the meeting of the previous evening.34

The Secretary said that in approaching the question of dealing with China in regard to the matters which we had been discussing he desired to refer briefly to his experience of the last eight years in relations with the American Republics. He then alluded to the distrust which had been built up in the Latin American countries toward the United States as a result of our previous policies calling for the use of our armed forces to support our interests there. He compared the situation which existed up to the time of the Montevideo conference in 1933 with the situation today, and he spoke of the good will toward and confidence in the United States throughout Latin America which has resulted from our policy of putting the Latin American countries on their honor to treat our interests fairly. The Secretary said that it had occurred to him that Chiang Kai-shek would probably have at his disposal numbers of seasoned and trusted troops which could be utilized to protect areas where special arrangements might be needed during a transitional period on account of prevailing lawlessness and of the extent of the interests of third power nationals to safeguard those interests. The Secretary suggested further that [Page 438] consideration might be given to the possibility, in arranging the schedule for the proposed withdrawal of Japanese troops from China, which would presumably involve a period of perhaps twelve months, to plan on having the troops occupying the areas in question come out last; a further idea would be to have a commission to deal with the problem presented by the need for maintaining order in these areas. He said he did not wish to pass upon the merits of these suggestions but was merely raising them for consideration.

The Secretary then went on to the question which he had raised during the previous evening of strengthening the emphasis in the document that peace in the Pacific was the central purpose of the instrument. He said that the instrument should, in his opinion, be so worded that it would speak for itself and make its nature clear and unequivocal to the public without the necessity of having its purposes explained by those who were its sponsors. He felt that this was especially important in view of the present situation of the world.

At this point a draft which we had prepared of a section numbered VI in regard to peace in the Pacific area was taken up and from this draft there emerged a mutually acceptable tentative formula, after the Japanese had registered their objection to the inclusion of the last sentence of our formula containing provision to the effect that action taken to protect national interests under international law was not to be made the occasion for aggression. The Japanese objection was stated to be on the ground that it might appear that the insertion of such a provision would indicate American suspicion of Japan.

The Secretary raised the question of whether the Japanese would have objection to describing their oral statement of May 12 as an “Annex and Supplement”. The Ambassador said he believed there would be none.

The Secretary asked whether objection was perceived to inserting in the “Annex and Supplement” the statement containing excerpts from his speech of April 24 which had been attached to our oral statement of May 16 for the purpose of clarifying our interpretation of what constituted self-defense.

Mr. Wikawa said that he understood that our oral statement had been withdrawn. Mr. Hamilton replied that Mr. Wikawa must have misunderstood. Colonel Iwakuro said he wondered what was the need of supplementing a simple understanding such as was contemplated with an elaborate documentation.

In reply to Colonel Iwakuro’s question as to what purpose the Secretary’s proposal would serve, the Secretary replied that he thought it would be helpful both to the Japanese and to us as clarifying our attitude on the subject. The Secretary added that Ambassador Grew had read the Secretary’s speech in question to Mr. Matsuoka [Page 439] and that Mr. Matsuoka had commented favorably upon it. No indication was given by the Japanese of their attitude on the Secretary’s proposal.

Mr. Hamilton asked what was the necessity of a reference in Section III to the Wang Ching-wei treaties, and he pointed out that this would be a source of embarrassment to us as we had not recognized the Wang Ching-wei régime and as they contained features which did not seem to us consistent with the principles under which we now proposed to act. He said that we had appreciated the force of the argument that the Japanese people had come to set store by the Konoe principles, but surely the treaty with the Wang Ching-wei régime was too recent to have a similar place in the minds of the Japanese public.

Colonel Iwakuro argued that the Wang Ching-wei treaty gave practical application to the Konoe principles and he considered reference to them necessary to clarify the position of the Japanese Government and the Japanese public. He said he did not see the relevancy of our non-recognition of the Wang régime to the question of making reference to them in the way proposed. He added that in any case the understanding was a confidential document and therefore he did not see how we would be embarrassed as we need not refer to that treaty in taking up the matter with the Chinese.

Mr. Hamilton endeavored to make it clear to the Japanese that we could not enter with [into] any secret arrangement, as such matters would be bound to be known in the course of a few weeks. No decision was reached in regard to the point.

It was arranged that each side would give further study to these points with a view to reconciling our differences. No time was set for the next discussion.

J[oseph] W. B[allantine]
  1. Mr. Hamilton was also present.