711.94/1633
Oral Statement by the American Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (Arita), July 11, 1940
I. The United States Government believes that at this point a clarification by the Japanese Government of its attitude with respect to future commercial policy would, if disclosing a compatibility with our [Page 100] own views, contribute to accelerating these conversations. Having settled outstanding difficulties with regard to fundamental and broad questions, the details would have a tendency either to fall into place or possibly to be eliminated.
II. It is desired, in connection with the proposed exchange of notes regarding maintenance of the status quo of Pacific possessions and territories of belligerent European powers, that there be borne in mind especially the intention to avert new difficulties and friction in the general Pacific situation, and it is hoped that the Japanese Government will share our belief that procedures which tend to prevent situations from deteriorating have within them the germ of contributing materially toward improving situations; that this procedure, if adopted, would tend to dissipate suspicion and curtail inflammatory discussion, thereby turning public thought toward peaceful and constructive processes. It would not only solve the specific problem for which designed, but in addition it might facilitate a solution of some of the other problems between the two Governments.
III. The United States Government believes that Japan must soon come to a decision regarding two fundamental questions:
(1) Will Japan follow a policy and a course of action based upon an attempt to exploit and secure for her own utilization the commerce and resources of territories now impoverished, where living standards are low and capacity for production limited, or will she choose to pursue a course based upon a policy of cooperation with other countries of a similar mind, in order to utilize all available resources of technical skill, capital, and progressive economic leadership with the aim of building up her own economy and that of the more primitive and undeveloped areas?
Viewed in historical perspective, the narrower course can bring no assistance or permanent benefit to any country—whatever benefits might accrue being merely of a temporary character. The broader course would increase many times the purchasing power of peoples, would elevate their standard of living, and would bring lasting advantages.
(2) The second fundamental choice in the opinion of the United States Government, related to the first, is whether Japan will decide to associate herself with countries committed to a policy of acquiring territory by force. Such a policy might of course denude occupied areas of natural and other forms of wealth, but once gathered, no substantial basis would exist on which to build for economic well-being in the future. It would, moreover, tend to preclude co-operation with other nations in a broad program of social and economic development of a progressive nature in which the capital resources and the technical skill of the various countries concerned would be enlisted.