711.94/2624
Statement Handed by the American Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (Toyoda) on September 10, 1941
The Government of the United States is at present examining the proposals communicated to the American Ambassador by His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs on September 4, and also communicated to the Secretary of State by His Excellency Admiral Nomura on September 6.
The American Government has in view an agreement conforming to the principles and methods which it has put forward; an agreement under the terms of which China would receive just and equitable treatment; in which the rights and interests of all Pacific powers would be given due consideration; and which would make a substantial contribution toward the establishment and maintenance of a just, [Page 611] stable and orderly peace. Since the hostilities existing between Japan and China are a basic factor in the problem of reaching a general settlement in the Pacific area, a fair and just settlement of their controversies by China and Japan is an essential condition to any general solution of the Far Eastern problems which might be expected to provide for the future peace and stability of that area.
The proposal as originally advanced by the Japanese Government provided for the exercise of good offices by the President of the United States, and the Japanese Government was informed that the Government of the United States was not prepared to suggest to the Chinese Government that it undertake negotiations with the Japanese Government unless the Government of the United States was convinced that the terms which the Government of Japan had in mind were consistent with the principles to which the American Government is committed. A deadlock was reached in the informal discussions between our two Governments in regard to these terms as a result of the insistence on the part of the Japanese Government that Japanese troops were to be stationed in Inner Mongolia and North China for an unspecified period, and also because of the fact that the Government of the United States was not able to elicit from the Japanese Government specific assurances that the principles of non-discrimination in commercial relations between nations would be applicable to the program of economic collaboration with China which Japan proposed to adopt. The Government of the United States has consistently sought an agreement the aim and terms of which shall lead to an all-embracing and durable peace in Eastern Asia and in the area of the Pacific.
The latest proposals submitted by the Japanese Government, it would appear, seek to break the deadlock, not by responding to the desires of the United States Government on the above points, but by proposing that Japan shall negotiate with China directly, on the premise that, since the good offices of the President are not to be sought, the Government of the United States would not be concerned with the character of the terms of peace which Japan intends to propose to China or with the progress of the conflict between China and Japan. Any such premise as the foregoing passes over or ignores the intention of the United States Government, which has been repeatedly impressed upon the Japanese Ambassador, to confer with the Government of China, Great Britain, The Netherlands, et cetera, before it could agree to embark on any definitive negotiations with the Japanese Government regarding a settlement involving the Pacific area. This intention of the Government of the United States is based on its view that the peace of the Pacific is not a question which can be decided by the United States and Japan alone but is a question [Page 612] in which other powers having interests in the Pacific have a legitimate concern and unavoidable responsibilities.
Nor would the Government of the United States be prepared to conclude any agreement which would restrict the degree of assistance that it is now rendering or may in the future wish to render to nations which are engaged in resisting aggression. It is possible to assume that the Government of China, to no less a degree than the Government of Japan, desires to effect a peaceful solution of its controversies with Japan, and that, therefore, provided the Japanese Government is ready to propose equitable and just terms to the Chinese Government, the two nations should find it possible to settle their difficulties. In the event of such an occurrence the need for any provision such as that embodied in point (a) of the commitments which it is proposed that the Government of the United States undertake would appear to be eliminated.
In the light of the considerations set forth above it is clear that some further initiative from the Japanese Government is required in order to effect a solution of the above-mentioned difficulties. It would be of assistance to the Government of the United States if an answer could be obtained from the Japanese Government to the following questions which have arisen as the result of the discussions:
1. In point (a) of the provisional commitments which the Japanese Government is to undertake it is indicated that Japan is prepared to subscribe to the points upon which tentative agreement had already been reached during the informal preliminary conversations held in Washington. Does the Japanese Government have in mind the points whose formulation as set forth in the draft of the Government of the United States of June 21 are identical to those appearing in the draft which was handed to the Secretary of State by the Japanese Ambassador on September 4, or to those appearing in some prior draft?
Should the answer to the first question propounded in paragraph 1 be in the affirmative it would seem that certain of the stipulations contained in the proposals conveyed to the American Ambassador by the Japanese Foreign Minister on September 4 are more limited than are the undertakings provided for in the formulae on which tentative agreement had been previously reached. As an example, in point (f) the Japanese Government undertakes to refrain from discrimination in matters of international commerce in the area of the southwest Pacific.
2. With relation to the example above cited affecting point (f), is it the intention of the Japanese Government not to undertake similar commitments in regard to its economic activities in other regions notably in China?
3. In regard to the general question of international commerce, further clarification would be desirable with regard to the meaning [Page 613] of the provisions of point (e) relating to American economic activities in China, namely, the precise meaning of the term “equitable basis” and whether this term is intended to mean that Japan shall be the sole judge in determining what constitutes an equitable basis.
4. Is the Government of the United States to understand that the terms of peace which Japan intends to propose to China will be in conformity with the several points appearing in the Annex to Section 3 of the draft submitted by the Japanese Ambassador on September 4 which is referred to above?
In connection with the formula outlined under point (c) dealing with respective attitudes of the United States and Japan towards the European war, while the American Government considers that this formula does not fully meet the requirements of the situation since it leaves Japan free to interpret independently any commitment on this score, the Government of the United States would like to examine the question further before putting forth any suggestion.