700.0011 Pacific/27a
The Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs ( Hornbeck ) to the Ambassador in Japan ( Grew )
Dear Mr. Grew: I send you herewith a copy of a strictly confidential memorandum prepared in the Division of Far Eastern Affairs under date February 16, 1937, on the subject “Neutralization of the Islands of the Pacific: Pros and Contras.”93
In the light of the situation created by the termination of the Washington and London Naval Treaties of 1922 and 1930,94 respectively, the President has been giving thought to the possibility of initiating some move which might reasonably be expected to contribute toward easing the present international situation in the Far East, and the President has put forth to the Secretary as a suggestion the idea of the American Government taking the initiative in action directed toward bringing about by international agreement “neutralization of the islands of the Pacific.” The Secretary asked us to prepare [Page 972] a memorandum setting forth the considerations pro and contra in regard to the subject: hence the memorandum of which a copy is enclosed.
It would be helpful to us to have the benefit of your view in regard to the question of the advisability of the American Government at this time taking the initiative in action directed toward concluding an international agreement along the lines of any one of the four types of agreement which are discussed in the memorandum of February 16. We would appreciate also any suggestions that may occur to you with regard to any other type of agreement which would seem to fall within the scope of the problem which has been made the subject of the memorandum.
This matter is of course highly confidential, and I therefore request that the memorandum receive the consideration only of yourself and that it be not shown to or the subject matter thereof discussed with any member of your staff. After you have read the memorandum and after you have given the subject your thought for a few days, I suggest that you send me a personal letter—of course through the pouch—setting forth your views and such suggestions as may occur to you.
The time element may be important. If your conclusion should be either that you favor the taking of no action of any kind, or that you favor any one of the types of agreement—without modification or qualification—set forth in the memorandum, I would appreciate receiving from you a strictly confidential telegram marked “For Hornbeck”, which would apprize me in as few words as possible of your conclusions. I am sure that you will have the same thought that I have regarding such a telegram, if sent: that it should be “blind”; that it should not mention the subject but should be phrased in such a way that, if the cipher text were “broken”, the text of the message in itself would convey no meaning. I anticipate that any conclusion which you might reach other than those suggested above would necessitate explanation or discussion, and, as secrecy is at present imperative, you will, of course, agree with me that there should be no communication between us by telegraph involving any risk whatever of making a disclosure.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by cable.95
Sincerely yours,
- Supra.↩
- For texts of treaties, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 247; 1930, vol. i, p. 107. For correspondence concerning termination of treaties, see ibid., 1934, vol. i, pp. 405 ff., and 1936, vol. i, pp. 22 ff.↩
- In telegram No. 100, March 30, 7 p.m., the Ambassador in Japan stated: “My judgment is definitely opposed to any action at this time. Letter follows by pouch”. (700.0011 Pacific/31) The gist of the letter dated March 31, is contained in the following sentences: “The ‘arguments contra’ so lucidly expressed in your memorandum coincide so completely with my own views that it appears superfluous to elaborate them. In my judgment they far outweigh the ‘Considerations Pro.’” (700.0011 Pacific/33.)↩