893.113/1454
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Mellon) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 9.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that on February 27 the Foreign Secretary announced to the House of Commons that as from that date, and pending the opportunity of international consultation and decision, the British Government would not authorize the issue of licences for the export to either China or Japan of any articles mentioned in the Arms Export Prohibition Order of 1931. Six copies of the Parliamentary debate, as reported in the Times of February 28, are enclosed.41
The Government’s announcement has caused considerable surprise, since as recently as February 21 the Foreign Secretary quoted President Hoover’s language that one nation’s prohibition of arms shipment would be futile, and the Prime Minister on February 22 stated that the question of an arms embargo must be the subject of an international agreement. However, it is realized that the embargo may result in being nothing more than a gesture, since (a) the Government’s decision does not contemplate an embargo for an indefinite period, but merely “pending an opportunity of international consultation and decision,” and (b) it is administratively impracticable to [Page 218] prevent the export of arms to a neutral country, Siam for instance, for re-export to Japan or China.
Despite the apparent lack of continuity in policy, the Government’s decision is of great importance and has received widespread comment most of which has not been favorable. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, the Government’s decision does not satisfy that large body of public opinion which wants an embargo on arms shipments to Japan, or that other important group in England which wants to keep out of the Far Eastern embroglio except in so far as the League of Nations or the Community of Nations take international action. An interesting item brought forth during the course of the debate was Sir John Simon’s statement to the effect that, however the embargo was handled, he did “not intend my own country to get into trouble about it”. This statement, it should be observed, was received with great enthusiasm by the House.
The main criticism of the Government’s action came from Sir Austen Chamberlain,42 Sir Herbert Samuel43 and Mr. Amery.44 Sir Austen urged the Government to obtain international action, pointing out that a very imperfect justice would be done if assistance were to be withheld impartially from nations which suffered unjustifiable aggression and nations which acted in defiance of a treaty. He conceded, however, that for the time being the compromise adopted by the Government seemed to be the only wise one.
Mr. Amery, on the other hand, pointed out that the Government’s action was against China rather than Japan, since the latter enjoyed an immense superiority in armament factories. Japan had a very powerful case based upon “fundamental realities” and there was no reason why Great Britain should in act or word go individually or internationally against Japan.
Sir Herbert Samuel likewise declared that to stop the export of arms to both China and Japan would be injurious to China’s interests and an enormous advantage would be given to the Japanese attack which was fed by her great arsenals. He trusted therefore that the temporary arrangement would prevail only for a very brief interval.
[Here follows summary of press views.]
Respectfully yours,
Counselor of Embassy