500.A4B/695: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham)
347. Department’s 336, September 11, 7 p.m.11 Referring to the British “oral message” asking the agreement of this Government to the renewal of Article 19 of the Washington Naval Treaty, the following oral reply was made to the British Chargé d’Affaires September 24, based on notes which were handed to him:
“Careful consideration has been given to the proposal, orally communicated to this Government by you, to join with the British and Japanese Governments in renewing Article 19 of the Washington Naval Treaty, 1922, in a separate instrument, with a change in one particular, namely, that there should be provision for bringing up to date and extending existing fortifications.
We have come to the conclusion that, unless reasons can be adduced for renewing Article 19 other than those which have been thus far communicated to us, we cannot see our way clear to accept the proposal to join with the British and Japanese Governments in negotiating a renewal of this Article.
Article 19, it will be recalled, was accepted by this Government in 1922, by way of concession to Japan, as one part only of an agreement of the most comprehensive character, including the Naval Limitations Treaty, the Four Power Treaty in the Pacific, matters of policy and complex factors in the relations of the United States to other countries. In order to reach agreement concessions and counter-concessions were made and ultimately a general bargain was completed which was intended to promote peace and stability in the Pacific and in the Far East.
This comprehensive agreement reached at Washington has not, however, survived the vicissitudes of 14 years. Without referring to the various departures from the political status quo, it need only be recalled that the Japanese Government, after denouncing the Washington Naval Treaty, 1922, last year, and after withdrawing from the London Naval Conference, 1935, has recently signified its refusal to adhere to the London Naval Treaty, 1936. Moreover, important changes are regularly taking place in the Far East. There is a condition of political flux and, in the circumstances, it appears unwise to this Government to crystallize one aspect of the situation while other aspects are left unsettled and in suspense.
However, in communicating its decision not to join with the British and Japanese Governments in a renewal of Article 19, this Government wishes it to be clearly understood that it has no desire to alter, and has no present intention of altering, the status quo in fortifications in the Pacific. It wishes to emphasize, moreover, that, although on the basis of the information which has come to it this Government cannot see that any benefits would accrue to the United States from a [Page 131] renewal of Article 19, it is prepared to receive, and to give the most careful consideration to, any further arguments which the British Government may wish to transmit.”
- Not printed.↩