894.032/127
Address by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (Hirota) Before the Japanese Diet on January 23, 193415
The Japanese Government was obliged to serve notice of withdrawal from the League of Nations on March 27 last year because the Manchurian incident and questions regarding the State of Manchoukuo showed that there was no agreement between Japan and the League on fundamental principles of preserving the peace in East Asia.
At the time when the decisive step was taken, His Majesty the Emperor graciously issued a Rescript pointing out clearly and precisely the path this nation should henceforth pursue. It reads:
“Now that Manchoukuo has been founded, our Empire deems it essential to respect the independence of the new State and to encourage its healthy development in order that sources of evil in the Far East may be eradicated and enduring peace thereby established.”
Further it reads:
“However, the advancement of international peace is what, as ever more, we desire, and our attitude toward the enterprises of peace shall sustain no change. By quitting the League and embarking on a course of its own our Empire does not mean that it will stand aloof in the extreme Orient, nor that it will isolate itself thereby from the fraternity of nations.
“It is our desire to promote mutual confidence between our Empire and all other Powers, and to make known the justice of its cause throughout the world.”
I am convinced that if we all unite in our endeavors to act in accordance with the wishes of our August Sovereign the world will surely come to realize the fairness and justice of Japan’s position, and bright will be the future of our Empire.
Personally speaking, in obedience to the Imperial message, I am determined to use every ounce of my energy to “carry out our national policy by diplomatic means in interest of world peace.”
Fortunately today, after our withdrawal from the League, commercial as well as diplomatic relations between Japan and friendly Powers in general have become even closer and more cordial than before. I wish to avail myself of this occasion to dwell somewhat on recent phases of our relations with those countries which are situated in our immediate neighborhood.
Manchoukuo, thanks to the tireless labors of His Excellency the Regent, and of Government authorities, and also to the wholehearted assistance and collaboration extended to her by this country, true to [Page 10] the spirit of the Japan–Manchoukuo protocol,16 has been making steady progress along all lines of her constructive work.
In ordering various governmental institutions, especially in the maintenance of law and order, in developments of industry and communication, in consolidation of the national finance and in the advancement of education and culture, signal success has been achieved.
Moreover a decision is about to be made on the establishment of a monarchical regime which has been so eagerly awaited by all her people, and which will go far to solidify the foundations of Manchoukuo as a young independent nation.
This is a matter of congratulation not from [for] Manchoukuo alone, but for the peace of the Orient and the peace of the world. I think it behooves our Government and people, always mindful of the Imperial Rescript to exert their efforts unremittingly in assisting the healthy growth of the new State.
The Japanese Government has serious responsibilities for the maintenance of peace in East Asia and has a firm resolve in that regard. But what is more essential in the matter is the stabilization of China herself.
Our Government sincerely hopes for the political and economic rehabilitation of China. It hopes that she will be enabled to unite with Japan in performing the obvious mission of both Japan and China—to contribute through mutual aid and cooperation to peaceful development of their part of the globe.
Unfortunately the actual situation of present-day China belies all such hopes. It has been reported that of late the Chinese Government, realizing the mistake of persisting in its anti-Japanese attitude has decided to take steps looking toward rectifications of Sino-Japanese relations, but so far no concrete evidence has come to our notice to confirm the truth of the report.
Should China appreciate our true motives and give tangible signs of sincerity on her part, Japan would be glad to reciprocate and meet her more than half way in a spirit of good will. It is gratifying to note that North China, under control of the Peiping political committee, remains comparatively quiet.
In view of the important rights and interests of Japan in that region and of its territorial contiguity with Manchoukuo, and also from the standpoint of the Tangku truce agreement,17 the question of maintenance of peace and order in North China is of special concern to Japan. She expects China to see to it that nothing will happen that may bring chaos to that area.
[Page 11]Meanwhile we are watching, not without grave misgivings, the activities of the Communist Party and the increasing rampancy of “Red” armies in China.
Regarding Japan’s relations with the Soviet Union it may be recalled that subsequently to the conclusion of the Peking basic treaty in 1925,18 normal contact was maintained between the two countries, and that even after the Manchurian incident there was thorough mutual understanding between the two Powers of their respective positions so that no difficult question was encountered.
However more recently the attitude of the Soviet Union toward Japan seems to have undergone a change of some sort. It is most surprising and regrettable that the Soviet Union should now take to broadcasting at home and abroad, through the press and other channels, unwarranted criticisms directed against Japan, and circulate exaggerated stories about aggravations of this or that situation evidently for political and diplomatic purposes which such rumors are calculated to serve.
Japan has consistently preserved her fair and equitable attitude toward the Soviet Union throughout the years past, before and after the Manchurian incident. Despite the fundamental differences in both the theory and constitution of the state that divide the two countries, we have always endeavored to keep on good neighborly terms with Soviet Russia and sought the solution of all questions by pacific means.
Especially since the establishment of Manchoukuo, the Japanese Government has been acting solely upon its conviction that a proper adjustment of the tri-partite relationship between Japan, Manchoukuo and the Soviet Union was of paramount importance for the tranquility of East Asia. Japan certainly is setting up no new military establishments along the Manchoukuo–Soviet frontiers, Moscow propaganda notwithstanding.
Indeed, it is only as a part of the above mentioned friendly policy that Japan has undertaken since last June to act as an intermediary between Manchoukuo and the Soviet Union in their negotiations on the proposed transfer of the North Manchuria Railway. Such being the case, I am sure that before long the Soviet Union must come to appreciate fully the true intentions of Japan.
It is earnestly hoped that the North Manchuria Railway negotiations, which have unfortunately been at a standstill for some time past, will soon be resumed.
It may be definitely stated that between Japan and the United States of America there exists no question that is intrinsically difficult [Page 12] of solution. Far from having any thought of picking a quarrel with America, Japan fervently desires American friendship. At the same time I am confident that the United States will not fail to appraise correctly Japan’s position in East Asia.
Only for a time following the outbreak of the Manchurian incident, public opinion in America was aroused against Japan, bringing about something like temporary estrangement of the two peoples. It is hardly necessary to reiterate that Japan is actuated by no other motive than her desire to establish enduring peace in East Asia.
Therefore if only America will clearly perceive the actual condition of the Orient and realize Japan’s role as a stabilizing force in East Asia, whatever emotional tension may yet linger between the two peoples is bound to disappear.
I sincerely hope that the two great nations across the Pacific will, in view of their important relations, commercial and otherwise, continue to join forces in cultivating their historical friendship and good understanding so as to keep the ocean forever true to its name.
Japan’s traditional amity with the British Empire remains unshaken, even to these times. I believe the two sea powers occupying geographically similar key positions, one in the East and the other in the West, can effectively serve the cause of universal peace through sympathetic appreciation of their respective stands and wholehearted collaboration in all quarters of the world.
It is in this sense that our Government is seeking to readjust whatever conflict of interests relating to questions of trade there may be and to strengthen further the ties of friendship that bind our Empires. That our negotiations with India, an important member of the British Empire, over knotty problems of commerce have now been substantially concluded is a source of gratification on both sides.
Now a survey of the world as a whole reveals a sorry situation in which economic disorder, political unrest and confusion and conflict of ideas threaten to destroy international equilibrium at any moment, while the mutual confidence of nations in one another appears to have wilted not a little.
I consider that no insuperable difficulties need be anticipated in settling any question if the nations manifest their sincerity, and with true comprehension of one another’s position meet in a genuine and generous spirit of universal brotherhood.
What is wanted is the abandonment of bootless jealousy and antagonism, and reinforcement of the sense of unity and mutual interdependence. However, international trade barriers, instead of decreasing are fast multiplying. The World Economic Conference was forced to adjourn without having achieved desired results.
[Page 13]Of late our industries have taken marked strides with corresponding expansion in our oversea trade, while owing to the prevailing economic nationalism one country after another has begun to set up fresh obstacles against the advance of our export industries. Our Government is making earnest efforts to deal effectively with the situation.
Since mutual understanding of one another’s unique national culture is of no small value in fostering good will between nations our Government is planning to take suitable measures in concert with private institutions for facilitating the cultural intercourse of our nation with the outside world.
In the light of what I have already stated it is impossible for me to deny that our foreign relations are now, and will be in future, beset with many serious problems. However the path of a rising nation is always strewn with problems.
As long as our people are united and well prepared to face courageously whatever difficulties may arise, and as long as we retain our composure and sobriety and “stray not from the path of rectitude and in action always embrace the golden mean”, I am confident that Japan has nothing to fear and her future will be full of hope. We should not forget that Japan, serving as only the cornerstone for the edifice of peace of East Asia, bears the entire burden of responsibilities.
It is this important position and these vast responsibilities in which Japan’s diplomacy and national defence are rooted. Our national defence is organized in its very nature for defensive and self-protective purposes. At the same time our diplomacy has no claims to put forth save what is legitimate and rational and consonant with our national mission.
That eventually this position in which Japan naturally and actually finds herself will be rightly understood by other powers is, I believe, a foregone conclusion.
- Copy transmitted to the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs on January 22 by the Japanese Chargé.↩
- Signed September 15, 1932, Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. iv, p. 253.↩
- Signed May 31, 1933, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 120.↩
- Signed January 20, 1925, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. xxxiv, p. 31.↩