793.94/5008: Telegram
The Minister in China (Johnson) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received April 9—noon.]
My April 7, 8 p.m.
1. Negotiators reconvened at 5 p.m. with discussion of alternative formulae. Japanese delegate reported that his Government accepts alternative one (see (a) under paragraph 2, my April 7, 8 p.m.) although it is far from meeting their wishes. Quo reported that Nanking does not consider any of the alternatives satisfactory and submits the following substitution for alternative 1:
“The Japanese Government take this opportunity to declare that the Japanese troops will as soon as possible be further withdrawn to the International Settlement and the extra-Settlement roads in the Hongkew district as before the incident of January 28, 1932, in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the agreement, it being expected that such withdrawal will be completed within a period of 4 months or sooner, during which normal conditions in and around Shanghai will have been reestablished.”
2. Quo also produced Rengo News despatch from Tokyo, dated today to the effect that “the Japanese Government in the instruction expresses its intention to agree to the first measure in principle rather than the second and third, the acceptance of which may accompany the possibility of giving an excuse to the Chinese to evade the round-table conference in case agreement for cessation of hostilities was not fulfilled.”
The Rengo despatch then states the Japanese Government wishes to emphasize that the clause expressing hope that conditions will improve within 6 months does not mean a promise to withdraw troops within 6 months, and that “opening of the round-table conference should be guaranteed in connection with the Japanese statement.” Quo pointed out deplorable effect this news despatch will have upon his Government and the awkward position it placed him in. He asked Shigemitsu whether it was an official declaration of the Japanese Government.
[Page 684]3. Japanese Minister replied he was surprised to see this news despatch, that it was entirely unofficial, that Rengo had no connection with the Japanese Government and that he himself had received no instructions either to interpret the formula or to attach any conditions and he authorized Quo to quote him on this.
4. Discussion then centered around Chinese formula quoted above.
Shigemitsu said it was unacceptable and declined even to refer it to his Government. Sir Miles and I then suggested that it really did not differ so very materially from the formula chosen by Japan and urged both sides to agree to slight modifications in order to save the situation.
5. Lampson and I suggested following formula in lieu of alternative 1.
“The Japanese Government take this opportunity to declare that as soon as local conditions in and around Shanghai return to normal—and they hope that conditions will have so returned within 6 months or sooner—the Japanese troops will be further withdrawn to the International Settlement and that [the?] extra-Settlement roads in the Hongkew district as before the incident of January 28, 1932.”
6. Quo reluctantly agreed to refer the new formula to Nanking although he said it would be contrary to his instructions as they had already made great concession by not insisting upon timetable. But the Japanese Minister declined to submit a fresh alternative to Tokyo because he felt the formula his Government had accepted was the best for both sides and if the Chinese did not agree to it then Tokyo was not bound either.
7. Shigemitsu finally promised that after consultation among themselves the Japanese delegation would let us know later in the evening whether they could refer the new formula to their Government. At 9 p.m. the Japanese Minister informed Sir Miles that they had decided to do so on condition that the Chinese would not offer any fresh alternatives.
8. Meeting adjourned till Monday.54
- April 11.↩