Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1938, The Far East, Volume IV

693.001/396: Telegram

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

Tokyo, November 19, 1938—8 p.m.
[Received November 19—2:25 p.m.]

744. Our 732, November 16, 3 p.m. The following is a summary of the private and informal interview lasting over an hour which Dooman had this afternoon with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As preamble I quote the first two paragraphs of Dooman’s memorandum of the conversation.³²

1. [“] After an exchange of amenities Mr. Arita asked me at the outset how the Ambassador had reacted to the note which was handed to me last evening at the Foreign Office.³³ I replied that the Ambassador had examined the note with the best of good will but that he was unable to find in it any statement which was substantially responsive to the desires of the American Government. Mr. Arita said, ‘Well, I suppose not.

2. Mr. Arita remarked that we were meeting, of course, informally and as old friends and that he felt that he could express himself freely to me not only because he could use the medium of his own language but he need not be unduly reserved.”

3. Arita said that he realized that the reply of the Japanese Government to our note of October 6 did not refer at length to the question of Japanese observance of the principle of equality of opportunity. He was obliged to consider Japanese public opinion and if he had presented in that reply the only position which public opinion in this country would approve or tolerate he would merely have given impetus to a debate which while exacerbating feeling displayed in the United States would have led to no constructive conclusion. On the other hand there was much he wished he could have included in that note and that he proposed to lay before me during our interview on Monday. He had asked Dooman to come in today in order that the latter could report to me beforehand what Arita has in mind.

4. There were two points which Arita believed merited the understanding of the American Government and people.

5. The first of these is that China is the only area in which the principle of equality of opportunity was set up by international agreement. It is true that a similar arrangement obtains with regard to Congo Basin.³⁴ After an extended account of the development of the Open Door in China, he said that the Japanese people felt that the motive of the European powers in emphasizing the Open Door in China is to assure opportunity for their exploitation of China just as they are now exploiting Africa.

6. The second point is that the United States and British Empire are self-contained economic as well as political entities. They have great wealth, they possess most of the necessary raw materials, and each contains within itself a large domestic market. Each country can, therefore, regard with composure any attempt at coercion by other powers through economic or for that matter military sanctions. Japan is, however, in a different position. Its domestic market is small and it possesses few resources. An army and a navy are incapable of securing the national defenses if attack is made, not by military instruments, but by the withholding from Japan of foreign markets and of essential raw materials. It is now the intention of Japan to place itself in a position of security against the possible application of sanctions either by the League of Nations or “by nations inside and outside the League.”

7. It was, therefore, impossible for Japan now to give an unqualified undertaking to respect the Open Door. True, Arita’s predecessors had given such assurances, but they had made, in his opinion, the mistake of trying to reconcile the Open Door with the accomplishment of Japan’s objectives as above explained, and this could not successfully be done. He intended to approach the problem from a different direction. He would say plainly that Japan proposes to secure in China a safe market and a safe source of raw materials, but he would also say categorically that foreign enterprises and undertakings which did not conflict with the accomplishment of those objectives would be respected and indeed would be encouraged. He strongly objected to the use of the word “bloc” in connection with the system of economic cooperation which would be set up by China, Japan, and Manchukuo: he would declare that Japan contemplates no territorial acquisition at the expense of the other two countries quite as positively as that she is determined to round out her plans for “economic national defense.”

8. Arita’s final statement was a plea for continued oral and informal discussion between himself and me which he believed would be more likely to lead to agreeing on a new definition of the Open Door acceptable to both Governments than by recourse to discussion in official notes.

9. Dooman confined his remarks largely to emphasizing the discrepancy between even the new Japanese concept of the Open Door as just propounded by Mr. Arita and actual developments in China. If there are no objections I would make wholly clear the views of our Government during the course of our forthcoming interview.³⁵

Grew

32. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, p. 801.
33. Ibid., p. 797.
34. See art. 1, convention signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, September 10, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 437.
35. The Department replied in telegram No. 394, November 20, 3 p.m.: “No objection. Please so proceed.” For Ambassador Grew’s interview on November 21, see Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. i, pp. 806 and 808 (similarly reported in telegram No. 746, November 21, 8 p.m., not printed).