894.00/428
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 13.]
Sir: The Department has no doubt been somewhat puzzled at times during the past few months at press reports, supposedly emanating from the “spokesman of the Japanese Foreign Office” or from “sources close to the Foreign Office”, which have later been officially denied or have not been borne out by subsequent developments. A case in point was the recent statement, made by the spokesman of the Foreign Office to the foreign newspaper correspondents but not to the Japanese newspaper men, to the effect that Japan might consider recognition of Manchukuo as an “independent government” and not as an “independent state”, thus implying that Japan might consider some sort of dominion status for Manchuria. The Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs later flatly denied that the Foreign Office had ever considered such an idea, but I am nevertheless informed by one of the foreign newspaper correspondents that the statement was made by Mr. Shiratori, the Director of the Bureau of Information and Intelligence of the Foreign Office and the official spokesman of the Foreign Office.
In investigating the cause of these contradictory statements, the Embassy has found that the “dual diplomacy” of Japan of which much has been heard at times extends even to the Foreign Office. Mr. Shiratori, although a career officer in the Japanese Foreign Office service, appears to speak frequently either on his own initiative or on orders from others than his superiors in the Foreign Office. As he is the official to whom is delegated the task of interviewing the newspaper correspondents, despatches are sometimes sent abroad which reflect the opinions of others than the Foreign Office officials, although emanating from the Foreign Office.
Briefly, Mr. Shiratori’s career has been as follows: He was born in 1887 and was educated in Tokyo Imperial University, graduating in economics in 1914. He entered the foreign service after examination and served in the consulates at Mukden and Hongkong. In 1916 he was sent as attaché to the Embassy at Washington, was promoted to the grade of Third Secretary in 1918 and to the grade of Second Secretary in 1922. He was then transferred to the Foreign Office as [Page 701] Chief of the Foreign Minister’s Secretariat. In 1926 he was appointed as First Secretary of Embassy at Berlin and in 1929 was returned to the Foreign Office. In 1930 he was promoted to the position of Director of the Bureau of Information and Intelligence, the position which he now holds. During his career abroad he has served on the staffs of the delegations to the Washington Naval Limitation Conference [and?] at Geneva in 1927.
There was nothing unusual in Mr. Shiratori’s career until recently. According to reports which have reached the Embassy, however, after the Manchurian outbreak of September, 1931, Mr. Shiratori indulged, in conversations with the newspaper correspondents, in remarks derogatory of the manner in which the Foreign Office was handling the explanations of the affair. The then Foreign Minister, Baron Shidehara, for this reason wished to remove him from his position but found himself powerless in the face of stronger forces. Mr. Shiratori also criticized, to the newspaper men, the manner in which Mr. Yoshizawa was conducting Japan’s defence before the League of Nations. Later, when Mr. Yoshizawa became Foreign Minister, he also endeavored to have Mr. Shiratori removed, but without success. Mr. Shiratori apparently had a firmer standing with the powers in control than did the Ministers for Foreign Affairs.
A part of Mr. Shiratori’s standing is due to the fact that he is a nephew of Viscount Kikujiro Ishii, formerly Foreign Minister, now a Privy Councillor, and perhaps the most highly respected statesman in Japan today, and also of Dr. Kurakichi Shiratori, a member of the Imperial Academy and emeritus professor of the Tokyo Imperial University. These family connections, however, strong as they are, hardly suffice to explain Mr. Shiratori’s bold and independent attitude in the Foreign Office. The principal reason for this seems to be that he has associated himself with the group of young military “fascists” who are in control in Japan to-day. He is reported to be very close to Baron Kiichiro Hiranuma, Vice President of the Privy Council and President of the Kokuhonsha, the extreme nationalist group of which General Araki is a member. His connection with this group appears to explain his immunity to official discipline and probably also explains the source of some of his statements to the press representatives.
As I pointed out in my telegram No. 194 of July 22, 2 P.M.,18 Mr. Shiratori seems to delight in making sensational (and sometimes misleading) statements to the foreign newspaper correspondents. This, however, is a matter of internal administration and does not affect the Embassy’s relations with the Foreign Office. What does seriously [Page 702] inconvenience the Embassy is Mr. Shiratori’s habit of frequently informing the news representatives of visits, however informal, of foreign diplomatic officers to the Minister or Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs and of giving out résumés, often inaccurate, of the conversations. This tends to prevent frank and informal discussions with the Foreign Office authorities and is an example of the lack of discipline in official circles which was discussed in my despatch No. 33 of June 30, 1932. In most Foreign Offices an appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the part of the diplomatic caller to regard the conversation as informal and confidential would be adequate to prevent publicity, but in Tokyo the very fact of Mr. Shiratori’s apparent independence of his superiors is likely to render such an appeal nugatory. This problem, especially in the case of the American representative whose conversations with the Foreign Office always furnish good “copy”, is therefore not easy to solve and it renders the development of close relations with the Foreign Office extremely difficult.
Mr. Shiratori, because of his boldness, volubility and excellent knowledge of English, has been mentioned as a suitable person to act as a delegate to the meeting of the League Assembly in September, when the Manchurian question will again be considered. The most recent reports indicate, however, that he will not be sent to Geneva as a delegate.
Respectfully yours,