711.94/897
Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs (Hornbeck)
Reference, London’s telegram 32, February 1, 6 p.m.
If at any time Ambassador Saito seeks “from the President an assurance given either to him or to his Government that America would not use force in her future relations with Japan”, it would seem that consideration should be given to the question: at what point in foreign relations does “use of force” begin.
Obviously, firing by the military instruments of one country upon those of another constitutes use of force. But does not the possession of military instruments coupled with a threat to put them into action also constitute use of force? As between Japan and the United States, which country has made threats? The answer is: Japan.
It may well be doubted whether the American Government should make any commitment in the form of a unilateral statement or in the form of a bilateral non-aggression pact with Japan to the principle that it “would not use force in future relations with Japan”. This country is already pledged in a multilateral treaty, the Pact of Paris,5 not to resort to war as an instrument of national policy. It might be safe to supplement this by a four or five-power pact in which the signatories would be the United States, Japan, Russia, China and Great Britian in which all of that group of powers agree not to use force in their relations with one another. It may well be doubted whether, strictly upon its intrinsic merits, even such a pact would be desirable. However, if Mr. Saito suggests or requests the assurance under reference, probably the most appropriate response that might be made would take the form of a statement that the American Government [Page 635] would be perfectly willing to give an assurance that the United States would not use force against another country provided it in turn were assured that the other country would not use force in ways and for purposes detrimental to the rights and interests of this country and other countries with which this country is at peace and toward which it has express obligations to try to maintain peace (such as those which appear in the Washington Conference treaties).6
If Mr. Saito seeks “some assurance from the American Government as to their peaceful intent toward Japan”, it should be a fairly simple matter for the President to say that he will make it a point at some opportune moment to make a statement within the terms of which there will be contained such an assurance; and to follow this up with a general statement declarative of the generally peaceful attitude and intent of this country. It is doubted whether it would be really appropriate or advisable for the President of the United States to make a declaration of peaceful intent in reference expressly, specifically and exclusively to one country, in this case Japan.
- Signed August 27, 1928, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 153.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, pp. 1 ff.↩