894.032/138

Memorandum by Mr. Eugene H. Dooman of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs17

The speech reviewing Japan’s foreign relations delivered in the Diet today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs gives marked indication [Page 14] of having been addressed more to the world at large than to the Japanese people and having been formulated with an eye primarily on creating a certain desired effect on overseas opinion. It contains at the same time a firm restatement of Japanese foreign policy (“The road for Japan to take has long been chosen.”) and a plea for the restitution to Japan of the good-will of other nations. It may thus in effect be regarded as a declaration of desire to work toward the resumption of Japan’s former relations with its neighbors, but on a basis acceptable to Japan.

The speech may be analyzed as follows:

1.
At the forefront, there is the effusive reference to the forthcoming visit to Japan of the “Emperor of Manchukuo”. In times not marked by stress, it would be usual for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make some felicitous reference to the contemplated visit to Japan of a foreign monarch; but, in view of the existing situation in the Far East, the reference is obviously intended to have a definite significance. It may be surmised that the portion of the speech dealing with “Manchukuo” had a two-fold purpose: one, to allay any suspicion likely to arise in Japanese nationalistic quarters of the existence of any divergence of opinion between the military element and the civil government, and, two, to reaffirm to foreign governments Japan’s determination to maintain the situation which it has brought about in Manchuria.
2.
The portion devoted to naval limitation is a restatement of previous Japanese declarations and contains nothing new; but even as a restatement it usefully serves Japan’s purposes, for the reason that it operates to keep alive the Japanese thesis in regard to “security”, “non-aggression” and “reduction of offensive categories” which has undeniably made an impression upon the unthinking both in this country and in Great Britain.
3.
The reference to relations with the United States is brief, but it is of distinct interest to note that Mr. Hirota has, by stating that “there exists no question between the two countries which is intrinsically difficult of amicable solution”, sought to express assent to the view set forth in the Secretary’s reply18 to Mr. Hirota’s personal message of February last,19 that “there are in fact no questions lying between our two countries which if they be viewed in proper perspective in both countries can with any warrant be regarded as not readily susceptible to adjustment by pacific processes”.
4.
As predicted in press despatches from Tokyo, Mr. Hirota’s references to relations with the Soviet Union are couched in substantially more friendly language than was the case in his last two addresses to [Page 15] the Diet. It will be noticed that Mr. Hirota concludes an apparently optimistic forecast of developments in the relations between the two countries with a request which is not of a reassuring character—that the construction by the Soviets of fortifications along the Manchurian frontier cease.
5.
Considerable space was devoted by Mr. Hirota to Japanese relations with China. The language which he used in urging China to collaborate with Japan in maintaining peace in the Far East is unobjectionable, but there is nothing in the statement which rules out the plausibility of the prediction made by the Japanese press that he would suggest to China cooperation with a view to eliminating western political influence from the Far East.

Conclusion:

The speech does not offer any basis to suppose that there has occurred any substantial change in Japan’s foreign policy. It contains material which may suggest development of an unfavorable character (Sino-Japanese relations) as well as of a favorable character (Soviet-Japanese relations). The speech does not appear to warrant any relaxation in the attitude of caution and reserve which has been assumed by this Government in the conduct of relations with the Japanese Government.

  1. Submitted to the Secretary of State on January 22 by the Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs.
  2. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 128.
  3. Ibid., p. 127.