711.94/1603
Memorandum by the Ambassador in Japan (Grew)
In compliance with the Department’s telegraphic instruction No. 180, June 4, 11 p.m.,49 I met the Minister for Foreign Affairs today privately at the house of a mutual friend in order to reduce the risk of publicity. My conversation in general was based upon the tenor of paragraphs 7 and 8 of our telegram No. 400, June 3, noon; the Department’s telegraphic instructions No. 172, May 30, 2 p.m.; and No. 180, June 4, 11 p.m.50 During the course of my remarks I made a particular effort to obviate the possibility of the Minister’s drawing any inference that either the American Government or I inclined toward any compromise or abandonment of policy or principle. The approach which I made was of a broad nature and not in specific terms.
I prefaced my remarks to the Foreign Minister by reading a press report51 quoting Mr. Welles as declaring on June 8, in part, that our Government is desirous of attaining friendlier relations with all other countries, including Japan, provided internal conditions in those countries make such improvement feasible—observing at the same time that, although I had received no confirmation of the accuracy of the text, I knew that its general tenor reflected my Government’s attitude. Mr. Arita commented that he had read the report with much pleasure.
After this introductory remark I referred to the Minister’s request at our last meeting, on April 26, that the conversation at that time be regarded as entirely informal, and suggested that the same characterization apply to our talk today. The Minister concurred in this. I said that I was acting today upon my own initiative and speaking my own thoughts, and that I had asked for this meeting because it seemed to me important and possibly helpful that the Minister and I should from time to time explore the relations between our two countries. I said that I would like to develop our talk in two main phases: on the one hand, the past and the present; and on the other, the future.
Referring to the Minister’s remark to the British Ambassador on May 27, quoting me as saying that there could be no possibility of [Page 68] an improvement of American-Japanese relations so long as the China conflict continued, I conveyed my impression, derived from our interview which took place on April 26, that the Minister himself shared that view. I said that although I did not remember ever having expressed my views to the Minister in exactly those terms, it must nevertheless be made clear with all the emphasis at my command that our relations cannot be expected to move into fundamentally happier channels so long as Japanese interference with American rights and interests in China continues and so long as Japan continues to endeavor to achieve various positive national objectives through measures of force. I elaborated on this theme at some length. On the other hand, I said that the American Government and people would welcome the fulfillment of their desire for an early return to mutually good and helpful relations with Japan; that the world situation now more than ever dictates the importance of our building up such relations; and that definite evidence of a reorientation of Japanese policy and efforts foregoing the use of force as an instrument of national policy would be viewed with sympathy by the United States. I declared that “I have every confidence that by proceeding along the course I have suggested, it may be possible in due course to open the way to a new era in American-Japanese relations.”
Speaking further and “off the record,” I alluded to the address which the Minister had made before the Pacific Association on June 3 (reported in our telegram No. 413, June 4, 8 p.m.), and said that I had been especially struck by the earnestness of Mr. Arita’s plea for the removal of barriers to trade as a prerequisite to the creating, after the present war in Europe, of a new world order, and that I could not restrain the feeling that if the Japanese Government could associate itself with the American Government in bringing about a free flow of commodities between nations, substantial progress might be made toward removing the causes of unrest, reflected in the conflicts both in Europe and in the Far East. I spoke at length of the unsoundness of economic blocs and of the creation of barriers to trade, devices which can never constitute a permanent basis for a progressive world economy. I repeated the remarks made to the Minister during our talk on April 26 to the effect that statesmanship must look to the long future rather than to the immediate present and that the reasons which dictate the maintenance of friendship between our two countries are fundamental and must prevail in the long run. I said that the confidence which I repose in that belief is stronger now than ever before. After then discussing the situation in Europe, the menace to civilization which has there arisen, and the unprecedented program of rearmament in the United States for defense and security after years of earnest effort to bring about world [Page 69] disarmament, I ended my remarks on the following note: “The confident knowledge that Japan, a nation for which the American people have entertained for more than eighty years feelings of the friendliest character, is prepared to align its policy and attitude with those of the United States would, in my carefully studied opinion, contribute far more to the future security and well-being of Japan than the achievement of objectives in the Far East by means which the American people have renounced.”
I then read to the Minister, as an indication of the historic attitude of the American Government and people toward Japan, the message of the Secretary of State to Mr. Hirota on March 3, 1934,52 and finally handed to him the statement prepared in the Embassy,53 of which I made mention in paragraph two of my telegram No. 289, April 27, 2 p.m.,53 comprising a partial list of infractions of American rights in China which had been revised and, in so far as possible from the information in the Embassy’s possession, brought up to date.
After I had completed the presentation of my views Mr. Arita said, “I agree in spirit and in principle with everything you have said.” He remarked “off the record” on the difficulties experienced by the Japanese Government in endeavoring to cope with various elements in this country which advocate a rapprochement with the totalitarian nations, and although he spoke in guarded language he conveyed beyond a doubt that the Government (mentioning especially the Prime Minister and himself) wished to see a different orientation developed. Judging by remarks which he made previously and subsequently, it was evident that this reference was to a desire on their part for closer relations between our two countries.
After his opening remark above referred to, the Minister had commented that the bulk of the United States fleet remains in Hawaiian waters. My reply was that Hawaii is American territory and that one of our most important naval ports is that of Pearl Harbor, and I went on to say that the fact that our fleet remains in Hawaiian waters represents no threat whatsoever to Japan. The Minister, however, replied that the continued stay of our fleet in those waters constitutes an implied suspicion of the intentions of Japan vis-à-vis the Netherlands East Indies and the South Seas, and he desired categorically to assert that Japan entertains no territorial ambitions. Quite to the contrary, he added, Japan is exerting her best efforts to promote good relations with her neighbors, and he cited as an example that a non-aggression pact is to be signed within a few days with Thailand. The emphasis which the Minister placed upon this [Page 70] matter is an indication of the important effect on Japanese consciousness of the stay of our naval forces in Hawaii.
Replying to my own observations, the Minister inquired what suggestions of a concrete nature the United States Government could propose looking to an improvement in the relations between our two countries. I stated that the whole tenor of my remarks had given plain indication as to the nature of the reply which my Government would make to such an inquiry. He, however, requested me to transmit his inquiry to the Department and said that he hoped for an answer. (It may be that the Minister wishes for some specific reason to obtain a formal statement from me “as under instructions”.)
Mr. Arita next said that he assumed that I was informed of the subject of the talks which he had had with Mr. Sayre. He said that the High Commissioner had suggested the possibility of a meeting taking place either in Manila or in Hong Kong between representatives of the Japanese Government and of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, but that as Mr. Sayre feared publicity, the matter had subsequently not been pursued. The Minister stated that his Government was prepared to deal with Chiang Kai-shek on the basis of the terms contained in Prince Konoye’s statement.54 I was left in no doubt that the Minister was exploring the possibility of an extension of good offices by the United States, although he made no request therefor. My only comment was that it was my assumption that should the Japanese Government desire to get in touch with Chiang Kai-shek it should be very easy to do so without intermediation and privately. In reply the Minister merely mumbled something in a low tone to the effect that the Japanese military were difficult. The subject was not pursued.
During the course of our conversation Mr. Arita inquired in a casual manner as to the possibility of concluding a modus vivendi between our two Governments but did not broach the subject in the form either of a proposal or of a request. I limited my observations to the remark that most of the elements of such a modus vivendi are now operative in fact if not in name, and he did not pursue the subject. Should the moment arrive when the consideration of a modus vivendi would appear opportune, we can properly refer to the Minister’s having raised this question in the course of this informal conversation.
The conversation closed with a few remarks regarding the war in Europe and the Minister’s expectation of hearing at any moment that Italy had entered the war.
I must here record my impression that the Minister, who is ordinarily rather reserved and reticent, was unusually friendly and that as I was departing after more than an hour of conversation he shook [Page 71] my hand with marked cordiality. I felt indeed that I could sense a new and unusual attitude on his part. He requested that I leave with him the notes of an informal nature on which I had based my remarks since he said that he might desire to make further comment on my presentation. Summing up the net results of our meeting, my view is that, although our attitude toward the present course of Japanese policy, which involves the continued employment of force, has once more been made clear in emphatic terms, leaving no possible doubt regarding our policy and our intention unequivocally to abide by that policy without compromising or abandoning any of our fundamental principles, a note has been struck nonetheless regarding the “long haul” which probably will receive careful consideration by the Japanese Government.
- Not printed.↩
- None printed.↩
- See telegram No. 191, June 10, to the Ambassador in Japan, supra.↩
- Vol. i, p. 127.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Apparently refers to statement of December 22, 1938, vol. i, p. 482.↩