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

394.1123 Thomson, J. C./36: Telegram

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

Tokyo, August 11, 1938—5 p.m.
[Received August 11—10:55 a.m.]

527. Our 517, August 5, 6 p.m.—Thomson case.

1. We conferred yesterday and again today on proposed statements with regard to the Thomson incident. The Foreign Office stated at the outset that the Japanese Government has repeatedly cautioned its troops in China to respect American citizens and to deal with them with circumspection and civility and that in this connection there has been no change of attitude or intention. However, in the proposed statement to be given out by the American and Japanese Governments, respectively, for the purpose of putting an end to the Thomson case, the Japanese Government would not be disposed, in view of the fact that neither party has relinquished its original stand, to announce that the Japanese Government was taking additional measures to caution Japanese troops unless the American Government could at the same time announce that American nationals were being officially advised to avoid raising difficulties with Japanese sentries. The Japanese Government was confident, however, that if action along the lines proposed by the Foreign Office were taken by both Governments, it would conduce to the preventing of future incidents.

2. The Foreign Office refused to accept the phrase “the known desire and intention of American nationals” in the Department’s draft or to consider any equivalent substitute. It took the position that the phrase implied that there has already been an official American announcement of intention to regulate the attitude of American nationals in China toward Japanese soldiers. While admitting that the attitude of the great majority of American nationals in China has been one calculated to avoid difficulties with the Japanese, the Foreign Office contends that there have been a number of instances of difficulties in which American nationals have taken the initiative, and that in the light of these cases the Japanese Government cannot give its agreement to a statement which would convey to the public the impression that the fault in the Thomson case, as in other cases, rests with the Japanese military. Comment: It seems to us that the phrase to which the Japanese have taken exception is ambiguous. As there is, in our opinion, no likelihood of its being acceptable to the Japanese Government, we recommend that it be dropped.

3. The Foreign Office stated that, if the Department will agree to the inclusion of some phrase which would refer to the giving by American nationals of consideration to the duties of Japanese sentries as a factor in preventing future incidents, the Foreign Office will go as far as possible toward meeting any objection which we might have to such a statement on the ground that it would prejudice the rights of American nationals in China. The Foreign Office accordingly proposed the inclusion, after the word “avoid”, the clause “with due consideration for the duties of Japanese sentries”. We suggested as a possible substitute the clause “by refraining from action obstructive of the duties of Japanese sentries but without prejudice to rights of American nationals”. The Foreign Office is prepared to accept our suggested phrase. Comment: It would have been helpful to us if the Department had specified the “possible implications” which made Yoshizawa’s original formula objectionable. If, as we assume, the most important of these implications was the possible effect of the formula, if included in the announcement, upon rights of American nationals in China, the phrase we have suggested would appear to provide adequate safeguard. In this belief, we recommend the phrase suggested by us to the favorable consideration of the Department.

4. Although the point is a minor one, the Foreign Office feels that the phrase “when carried out” might better be omitted, but states that if the Department insists on its retention in reference to “the intention of the Japanese military authorities”, it should be inserted after the word “advice” and before “of American officials”.

5. As a check against possible error, the draft statement to whose issuance by the Department the Foreign Office is agreeable would run as follows: (No change from the Department’s draft up to the words “civility toward American nationals” injured [sic] and continue) “together with the advice of American officials in China to American nationals present in those areas to avoid, by refraining from action obstructive of the duties of Japanese sentries but without prejudice to the rights of American nationals, giving occasion for difficulties with such sentries would contribute” (continue to the end of the Department’s draft without change). The proposed statement which would be issued by the Foreign Office would read as follows: “After and in the light of a long discussion of the matter we are convinced that no effectual purpose would be served by further contention over the incident, and that, while this Government continues to adhere to its understanding of the Thomson incident, we are confident that the proposed advice of American officials in China to American nationals present in the Japanese occupied areas to avoid, by refraining from action obstructive of the duties of Japanese sentries but without prejudice to the rights of American nationals, giving occasion for difficulties with such sentries, together with the intention of the Japanese military authorities to impress upon Japanese soldiers in the occupied areas the importance and propriety of maintaining an attitude of civility toward American nationals, would contribute” (continue to end of Department’s draft without change).

6. If the proposed changes are agreeable to the Department, the Foreign Office proposes that release to the press be made both at Washington and at Tokyo for publication before noon August 13, Tokyo time.

Grew