711.94/2624
Memorandum by the Ambassador in Japan (Grew)
I called on the Foreign Minister this evening at his request for an interview which lasted one and a half hours. Mr. Terasaki and Mr. Inagaki of the American Bureau of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Dooman also attended.
Admiral Toyoda first read and then handed me the text of the instructions which the Minister said were to be telegraphed that night to Admiral Nomura in Washington, setting forth replies to a number of questions which Admiral Toyoda told me Mr. Hamilton, under instruction from the Secretary of State, had asked the Japanese Ambassador on September 10. A copy of these instructions to the Japanese Ambassador, which I cabled in paraphrase this evening to the Department, is attached9 to this memorandum.
Mr. Terasaki, at the request of the Foreign Minister, began by reading in English from a paper written in Japanese a statement of which the following is a summary:
- (a)
- It had been the Minister’s intention that the tentative proposals which he had delivered to Mr. Grew on September 4, and which had been handed to the Secretary of State by the Japanese Ambassador on September 6, should embrace every one of the points upon which preliminary agreement had been reached in the informal conversations in Washington. Concurrently it was the Minister’s desire to obviate long drawn out discussions of details which might delay or in other ways impede the holding of the suggested meeting between the President and the Japanese Prime Minister since the time element was essential.
- (b)
- It is not the intention of the Japanese Government to reduce or curtail in any way whatever the points on which preliminary agreement had been reached in the aforesaid conversations. In actual fact the undertakings which Japan is now willing to assume transcend in scope the points on which agreement had been reached in Washington. The Japanese Government has in mind a program which is certainly far more extensive than the previously agreed points. While the present proposals are designed to obviate long drawn out discussion of details at the present time, the Japanese Government is willing to discuss such details once it is agreed that the responsible heads of the American and Japanese Governments shall hold a meeting.
- (c)
- The Government of the United States has indicated its desire to confer with the Governments of Holland, Great Britain, and other countries concerning the matters under discussion between Japan and the United States. Although the Japanese Government feels compelled to state that any agreement which may be achieved between the United States and Japan must be of a bilateral nature, it entertains no objection whatsoever to the Government of the United States carrying [Page 621] on any consultations which it may desire to hold with other interested nations.
- (d)
- It was the Minister’s understanding that the proposals which he had handed to me on September 4 had as yet not been seen by the President, and it was the Minister’s earnest hope that they might be brought to the attention of the President as soon as possible. In reply to this, I stated that the Secretary of State was in constant communication with the President in regard to the conversations in progress and that it was up to the Secretary to decide what data should be brought to the President’s attention and at what time.
After listening to the Preamble outlined above, I stated that the Government of the United States had up to the present made no definite answer to the proposals which the Minister had delivered to me on September 4 and that they were still being discussed. I said that it was the hope of my Government that preliminary conversations would make it possible to clear up those points of the proposals submitted by the Minister which are susceptible of broad construction and thereby to ensure that the meeting between the President and Prince Konoye, if and when it took place, would be a success. I pointed out that should the meeting fail of success, appalling consequences would ensue.
Admiral Toyoda then gave me orally answers to the questions which I had on September 10 put to him as instructed in the Department’s telegram No. 573, September 9, 11 a.m.10 In giving me these replies the Minister drew my attention to the fact that although certain of his replies which were in answer to the questions asked the Japanese Ambassador by Mr. Hamilton and to those which I had put to him were either identical or mutually inclusive, he had considered it advisable, in order to avoid possible confusion, to draw up separately the answers to the two groups of questions. The answers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the questions which I had put to him on September 10 are as follows:
- First. The Japanese Ambassador had presented to the Secretary of State on September 4 a draft statement which represented the Ambassador’s personal and private views and it was consequently an unofficial document. The Foreign Office had subsequently been informed by Admiral Nomura that he had withdrawn this statement. As a consequence the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not think it would be necessary to go into the question of the effect of Admiral Nomura’s draft statement of September 4, which he subsequently withdrew, on the points on which tentative agreement had already been reached.
- Second. In so far as the question relating to item (f) of the Minister’s proposal is concerned, there is no intention on the part of the Japanese Government to discriminate in commercial matters in the area of the southwestern Pacific and in other regions, in particular China. However, in regard to China it is necessary to consider this [Page 622] question in the light of observations set forth in the reply to be given to Mr. Hamilton in response to his question on this point.
- Third. As to the significance of the words “equitable basis”, these words refer to activities of an economic nature which are not discriminatory in nature and which are non-monopolistic, non-exploitive, and non-exclusive, modified, however, by the natural unavoidable factors referred to in point (e) of the answer to be given to Mr. Hamilton. It follows therefore that Japan alone is not to decide what is meant by “equitable basis”.
- Fourth. In so far as the formula set forth in point (c) of Admiral Toyoda’s proposal is concerned, the reply in substance would be similar to that set forth above in “First”. In regard to the wish of the Government of the United States further to study the formula in question, Admiral Toyoda stated that in consequence thereof he would refrain from further comment on this point until such time as the Government of the United States would desire to raise some question in regard to that formula. The Minister “deemed it advisable” that a further elucidation of the formula proposed by the Japanese Government should be discussed by the President and Prince Konoye at the projected meeting.
Admiral Toyoda in conclusion again emphasized the urgency of a meeting between the responsible heads of our two Governments with the least possible delay. He said that attempts were being made to prevent this meeting being held. He said that while many of these obstacles arose out of the internal situation in Japan, more dangerous still are the indications of third Powers aimed to forestall the holding of the meeting. The Minister again made reference to the fact that on September 27 would fall the anniversary of the Tripartite Pact. In adverting again to the opposition to the suggested meeting which is being manifested by certain elements in Japan, he earnestly and seriously expressed the hope that the Government of the United States would very soon find it possible to decide the question in the affirmative. I told the Minister that although I had already drawn the attention of my Government to the considerations which he had just outlined, in view of the great weight which he attributed to the urgency of speedy action I would again transmit his views to the Secretary of State.
I also told Admiral Toyoda of the substance of the final paragraph of the Department’s telegram No. 573, September 9, 11 a.m., regarding the continuance in Washington of any definitive discussions concerning the reaching of an agreement on principle.