711.94/216211/14
Memorandum of a Conversation
The Japanese Ambassador called at the Secretary’s apartment by appointment made at the Secretary’s request. The Secretary handed the Japanese Ambassador a complete rewrite of the draft proposal.47 The Secretary also handed the Ambassador an oral statement,48 which he asked the Ambassador to read over. After the Ambassador had read over the oral statement, the Secretary elaborated on the points contained therein along lines as follows:
At a time when Nazi Germany had invaded some fifteen or twenty countries the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs was declaring in effect that measures of resistance by countries not already actually invaded would call for action by Japan under the Tripartite Pact. This would be like saying that if a tiger should break loose in the countryside and if a villager living a mile or so away from where the tiger is committing depredations and killing neighbors should go out and attack the tiger in order to protect his own family the action of the villager would constitute aggression.
With regard to the question which had been raised by the associates of the Japanese Ambassador with Mr. Hamilton in regard to American military bases in the Western Pacific region, Japan had seen this country gradually withdrawing from that region. The Ambassador would recall the treaty into which we had entered with Japan along with other nations in 1922 providing for the non-fortification [Page 484] of our territory in the Western Pacific,49 which treaty we had expressed our willingness to renew in 1936. How much more evidence was there needed to carry conviction of our peaceful intentions?
It seemed to us that the Japanese Government would decide either to assume control of those elements in the Japanese body politic which supported Nazi Germany and its policies of aggression or to allow those elements to take over entire charge of Japan’s policies. If the Japanese Government decided before it was too late that Hitler was dangerous to Japan and if then Japan decided to come forward with a program which offered a basis for cooperation along peaceful courses, we should be glad to consider such a program.
The Secretary then dwelt upon the importance of an understanding such as we had been discussing at a time when the world is hovering on the brink of a precipice. He said he was sure that the Ambassador shared the Secretary’s views on the need of far-sighted statesmanship which would look beyond just immediate advantages. The Secretary said that he was leaving for the country for a few days to recuperate, but that he would be where he could be reached and he said that his associates would be available for consultation with the Ambassador and his associates should there be any points which the Ambassador might wish to bring up with them. The Ambassador said nothing significant by way of comment other than that he would study the oral statement and the redraft of the proposed understanding and would be glad to take up with the associates of the Secretary any matters on which he might desire to seek their views.
The documents handed to the Japanese Ambassador are as follows:
Oral statement of June 21.49a
Redraft of the proposed understanding, dated June 21 and marked “Unofficial, Exploratory and without Commitment”,49b together with an Annex and Supplement on the Part of the Japanese Government with regard to action toward a peaceful settlement between China and Japan, an Annex and Supplement on the Part of the Government of the United States with regard to commerce between both nations, a suggested exchange of letters in regard to the attitude of the two countries toward the European war, and a suggested letter from the Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador in regard to the application to economic cooperation between China and Japan of the principle of non-discrimination.