500.A4B/695
Memorandum by the Acting Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Hickerson)
Mr. Mallet1 called to discuss “naval matters”. After reviewing in a general way the recent Japanese note with regard to the retention of submarines2 and asking about Secretary of the Navy Swanson’s press conference, Mr. Mallet said that the real object of his visit was with reference to Article XIX of the Washington Naval Treaty, 1922, which reads as follows:
[Here follows the text of article XIX, Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament, signed February 6, 1922, Foreign Relations, 1922, volume I, pages 247, 252.]
Mr. Mallet then recalled that on February 18 last, Mr. Fujii, the Japanese Chargé d’Affaires in London, informed the British Government that the Japanese Government was prepared to consider the renewal of Article XIX of the Washington Treaty of 1922,3 dealing with the non-fortification of certain insular possessions in the Pacific. The British took note of this desire on the part of the Japanese to renew Article XIX and communicated the information to the American Embassy in London.
Since that time the British Government has been giving careful consideration to the question of a renewal of Article XIX and, after a careful review of all the circumstances, it has come to the conclusion that this Article should be renewed in a separate instrument. The British Government believes, however, that it might be a good thing to make a change in one particular, namely, that there should be provision for bringing up to date and extending existing fortifications.
[Page 123]Mr. Mallet emphasized “existing fortifications” and pointed out that the extension of these fortifications could only have the effect of increasing the defensive capacity of the territories involved and would remedy a somewhat anomalous situation in which out of date defenses have to be maintained without their being any very clear idea of the extent to which they can be modernized without infringing the Treaty. Mr. Mallet added that from every standpoint, psychological, political, as a deterrent to the race in armaments, and in the general interest of peace, it would be well to preserve Article XIX, and his Government was most anxious to have it preserved.
Mr. Mallet said that this was to be regarded as an oral message. His Government was most anxious to know the views of the Government of the United States with regard to this proposal and was making a similar communication through the Embassy in Tokyo to the Japanese Government. If the principle of the renewal of Article XIX were accepted by the Government of the United States of America his Government would submit a detailed text incorporating its views.
Next Mr. Mallet stated that he had a very confidential communication to make upon instructions from his Government—a communication which was not being made to the Japanese Government. First, he repeated with emphasis that his Government would view with grave concern the lapsing of Article XIX which it considered it was vital to maintain. He then said that the provision specifying that there should be more liberty to bring up to date and extend existing fortifications was included in order to enable his Government to modernize the fortifications at Hongkong. He said that his Government felt that it was most imperative to bring these fortifications up to date and that in accepting the renewal of Article XIX in a separate instrument it should have this in mind. He said, moreover, that his Government was convinced that the renewal of Article XIX could not be regarded as a bargaining factor in general or naval negotiations, that it must be considered as a unit in itself.
Mr. Hickerson remarked that this Article had been agreed upon in 1922 as part of a general bargain and asked Mr. Mallet if his “oral message” was the consequence of some new move by the Japanese.
Mr. Mallet replied that he did not know. He thought, however, that it was merely the natural outcome of the Japanese communication of February 18.
In conclusion, Mr. Hickerson assured Mr. Mallet that the proposal of the British Government would be accorded careful consideration and a reply would be communicated in due course.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Victor A. L. Mallet, British Chargé d’Affaires.↩
- See telegram No. 114, September 10, 1 p.m., to the Ambassador in Japan, p. 137.↩
- The Japanese Government denounced the treaty on December 29, 1934; see Foreign Relations, 1934, vol. i, pp. 405 ff.↩