Office of the Historian

893.6363 Manchuria/161: Telegram

The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State

Tokyo, March 28, 1935—10 a.m.
[Received April 3—11:35 p.m.]

66. Embassy’s 63, March 25, 5 p.m. Following is a digest of the Japanese aide-mémoire of March 25 delivered in reply to the British representations of November 24, as translated by the British Embassy.

1.
The aide-mémoire, after recapitulating the British contentions, states that those contentions are primarily upon a complete disregard of the independence of Manchukuo, which independence is recognized by the Japanese Government; states that it is contradictory, while denying the existence of Manchukuo, to cite only that part of Manchukuo’s unilateral declarations which are favorable to British interests; states that while Japan is willing to mediate it cannot intervene in a domestic question of Manchukuo; and states that “the Japanese Government regret that the British Government should on this occasion again wish to invite argument upon fundamental questions relating to the Japanese recognition of Manchukuo, which is their unchangeable national policy.”
2.
The aide-mémoire then proceeds to outline the following points:
(a)
Manchukuo’s control of the petroleum industry is a scheme of the Manchukuo government and the Japanese Government is not concerned in it; the Manchuria Oil Company possesses no exclusive monopolistic rights; there are no provisions discriminating on account of nationality in regard to the holding of shares of the Manchuria [Page 887] Oil Company; the Japanese Government therefore denies any infringement of treaties or declarations in connection with the establishment of the monopoly or with Japanese investments in the Manchuria Oil Company.
(b)
“It is evident, according to international law, that the provisions of the treaties between China and other countries cannot be understood as being taken over uniformly and unconditionally without any sort of new arrangement for the consequences upon the independence from China of Manchukuo. It is believed, accordingly, that it was proper that Manchukuo, when first established as a nation, should have declared that in the treaties hitherto in force between China and other countries only such things as ought, in the light of international law and international usage, to be taken over, should be taken over and respected. Futhermore, although it is a fact that in the communication in which Manchukuo proposed the inauguration of her diplomatic relations with foreign countries the open door policy was not proclaimed yet it is evident that these foreign countries who completely disregarded her proposal have not the right to accept unilaterally those parts alone of her communication which happen to suit their own convenience. Moreover, even leaving out of consideration the present state of affairs in Europe and America, where the most extreme policy is being put into practice in the control of commerce and trade, the application of the necessary control by an independent nation to industries such as the petroleum industry, which have an important relation to her existence as a state, is the proper right of a nation, and it is inconceivable that when, in announcing her independence, Manchukuo made the above mentioned comprehensive declaration she was abandoning her proper national rights and duties. Thus it cannot be allowed that there is in fact involved in her present scheme for the control of the petroleum industry any contravention by Manchukuo of treaties or declarations.”
(c)
The Japanese Government therefore cannot agree to bear responsibility for the actions of Manuchukuo and cannot allow any contention based on a denial of the independence of Manchukuo.

Repeated to Peiping by mail.

Grew