793.94 Shanghai Round Table/20: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Neville)
122. Department’s 119, May 25, 5 p.m., and your 144, May 27, noon. The Department believes that unless you and your interested colleagues should ascertain informally that the present Japanese Foreign Office is no longer interested in the proposal made on May 13th by the Japanese Foreign Minister and that a reply is now unnecessary, a reply will have to be made to this proposal. (See your 144, May 27, noon, paragraph 2.) In this connection you should bear in mind that while it would be desirable not to have the issue raised again in view of the Department’s inability to accept the Japanese proposal in its present form, nevertheless it is equally important that the governments to which the proposal was made should not appear neglectful of the proposal if a reply is still expected.
Unless it be ascertained that a reply is unnecessary, you are authorized to reply, informally and orally, along the lines set forth in Department’s 119, May 25, 5 p.m. The Department leaves to your discretion and that of your colleagues the time and occasion for making reply. In making reply please keep in mind the following points: [Page 49]
- 1.
- As the Japanese proposal was presented at a joint interview there would appear to be certain advantages in taking the matter up further with the Japanese Ministry for Foreign Affairs in another general interview. However, the Department authorizes you, in consultation with your interested colleagues, to decide whether a reply should be made jointly or individually.
- 2.
- In making reply it may seem desirable to suggest that any further conversations, which exclude Chinese participation, might preferably be carried on by the Japanese Ambassadors in the four capitals concerned. Such conversations, of course, would be less likely to have unfortunate publicity and to arouse Chinese susceptibilities.
- 3.
- With regard to the Department’s telegram 119, May 25, 5 p.m., paragraph 4, the Department advisedly adopted the phraseology used in that paragraph which you will note makes no direct reference to Manchuria but refers to “all outstanding issues in the present Sino-Japanese controversy wherein there are involved or affected multilateral rights and interests”. Although there should be no misunderstanding of the fact that by this phraseology the Department includes matters affecting Manchuria, it was felt that this phraseology covers the general situation of which Manchuria is only a part.
- 4.
- The Department understands that the British Foreign Office is in general accord with the views of the Department as expressed above. The Department has also informed the French and Italian Ambassadors here of its views. The Department therefore understands that your reply and that of the British Ambassador will follow the same general lines and it is hoped that the French and Italian Ambassadors will be authorized to make similar replies.
Please repeat to Peiping this telegram together with the Department’s 119, May 25, 5 p.m., keeping the Department fully informed of developments.