500.A15A/274: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 21—6:30 p.m.]
48. Your 27, November 17, 8 p.m.,5 asking for comments on the suggestions indicated therein, is answered in general in my other cables today. To be more specific however, (a) the announced decision6 of Japan to terminate the Washington Treaty and refusal to continue naval limitation on the present basis alters considerably the problem that confronts us. I accordingly feel that we should defer a decision with regard to giving out the President’s letter of instructions to me at least until we know more definitely the extent and way in which the British and ourselves can go along together, particularly since the letter was, as I understand, drafted mainly with a view to making publicly clear our position in the case of failure to reach an agreement [Page 360] with both the British and Japanese for a renewal of the treaties. If the British and ourselves agree upon a common stand against the position taken by Japan, publication now would be displeasing to the British and might be construed as showing a difference between us with regard to the British demand for an increase in cruisers.
(b) The purpose and full meaning of the suggestion in your paragraph (b) is not clear to us. Unless you are referring to exempt ships, we can only understand the suggestion to mean in effect that we attempt to obtain a gentleman’s agreement to abide by a treaty agreement, since the Washington and London Treaties both regulate the laying down of additional vessels between now and December 31, 1936. Until the situation is more clarified it does not seem advisable to raise the question of ships which may be laid down during the life of the existing treaties.
(c) The British will undoubtedly favor an agreement for publicity in respect of all naval construction, and this in our opinion would be most desirable even if we can get nothing more.
(d) Referring to your 22, November 15, 6 p.m. For our guidance I would appreciate it if you would explain more fully how you think we can escape the commitment to meet in conference within one year of denunciation of the Washington Treaty without a formal agreement between all of the parties to that treaty, including France and Italy, since it would involve in effect a modification of the treaty.