Office of the Historian

893.01 Manchuria/419: Telegram

The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State

Tokyo, September 2, 1932—5 p.m.
[Received September 2—7:30 a.m.]

223. The Foreign Office spokesman today gave to the foreign news correspondents a résumé of the impending treaty with Manchukuo [Page 222] which differs somewhat from the version contained in my 216, August 20, 5 p.m. There is an official ban against the publication of this résumé in Japan and I do not know whether it will reach the foreign press before promulgation of the treaty itself.

The treaty, which is to be called “Japanese-Manchurian Protocol”, is said by the spokesman to be comprised in one and one-half typewritten pages and to contain the following provisions.

1.
Formal recognition of Japan of the “State of Manchukuo”.
2.
Respect of each other’s territorial sovereignty.
3.
Respect of Japan’s treaty rights and interest in Manchuria.
4.
Recognition by Manchukuo of Japan’s right to station troops anywhere in Manchuria (instead of only in railway zone and thus conferring a new right).
5.
Undertaking by Japan to defend Manchukuo against any internal or external menace (eliminating necessity for a Manchukuo army).
6.
No time limit for duration of treaty.

Foreign Office spokesman observes that this arrangement will not constitute a protectorate since it contains no clause for Japan’s supervision over Manchukuo’s foreign and financial affairs. He adds that the treaty will be accompanied by a “minor technical military agreement” which will not be published. (Obviously secret clauses). He expresses opinion that the treaty will be ratified by the Japanese Privy Council and the respective chiefs of state and that it will be signed by General Muto and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Manchukuo prior to September 15th, taking effect on date of signature. He adds that the treaty will be communicated to the principal powers but not to the League of Nations.

In an informal conversation this afternoon the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs stated “speaking quite confidentially it may be said that the outline as given to the press by the information bureau is substantially correct. He added that he did not want to be quoted as he was not authorized to do so”. Please do not use his name in this connection.

Repeated to Peiping.

Grew