893.102 Tientsin/311: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Japan (Dooman)
182. Your 297, June 26, 6 p.m., paragraph 8.
1. Since the receipt of your telegram under reference, the Department has continued to follow with special care developments in the Tientsin situation and at other points in China as well as developments elsewhere which have a bearing upon Japan’s activities in China. The Department has also continued its preparation of a note to the Japanese Government. The note has now been completed. Before telegraphing the text to you for delivery to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Department desires to receive an expression of your opinion, in the light of developments since the despatch of your telegram No. 297 and of the comprehensive outline of the note set forth in paragraph 2 below, whether the time is now opportune for sending the note.
2. The note begins with mention of the Tientsin issue and of how the situation was rapidly broadened far beyond the original incident by acts and statements of Japanese authorities. Mention is made of the situation at Amoy.97 It is stated that this Government is not concerned in the original Tientsin incident but is broadly concerned regarding restrictive and coercive Japanese measures in many parts of China directly affecting American interests and is likewise broadly concerned with the implications of Japanese acts and statements, past [Page 214] and present, which raise fundamental questions, especially in relation to the future, as to the meaning of (a) such Japanese measures directly affecting American interests and (b) the “new order” in East Asia and its implications.
Attention is called to the general and specific rights of the United States in China under treaty and international law, and to Japanese assurances relating to respect for American rights and interests in China. It is pointed out that Japanese acts at Tientsin, Amoy and other places in China impair American rights and interests.
With regard to the new order of the Far East, it is pointed out that developments in Manchuria and in Japanese controlled areas south of the Great Wall raise the question whether the objective is to block off a large area from normal relationships with the rest of the world. Mention is made of monopolies and preferences and of currency arrangements, etc., designed to favor or facilitate Japanese interests to the detriment of American rights and interests, and of the exclusion of American nationals and goods from areas where Japanese nationals and goods are allowed free access.
These measures raise the whole question of relations between China and the rest of the world.
The principles developed gradually under general agreement, designed to maintain unimpeded foreign intercourse with China, are mentioned. Special reference is made to the principles of equality of rights and opportunity, and of non-intervention in the internal affairs of China. Violation of these principles creates a situation which cannot but raise the questions (a) whether the Japanese Government asserts the right to dominate a large part of Asia, to set up and control governments in that area, to claim a monopoly of benefit and advantage, notwithstanding the established fabric of treaties and of law to which Japan and other countries are committed; and (b) whether the Japanese Government intends that American nationals, goods and ships may enter China and Chinese waters only under Japanese sufferance.
The question of interference with American nationals and American interests, while highly important, is not as significant as is the paramount issue raised by the apparent Japanese intention to dominate and hold a large area of the world, by unilateral action based on force, for Japan’s sole advantage. Civilized life would deteriorate steadily if conquest and forceful domination should become a rule in international relations and a situation would be created where other nations would have no course but to take under consideration measures necessary for the protection of their own civilization and security. We are prompted by our long friendship with Japan to state candidly that pursuit of a course of conquest and forceful domination, if generally [Page 215] practiced, would result in international anarchy, destruction rather than construction, etc. The United States and Japan have a vital interest in the future peace, security, and civilization of the world, and it is essential that international practice envisage a world based on law in which all can live.
The United States has always regarded international agreements as susceptible of alteration by orderly processes, and is prepared now to discuss with the interested governments any just and reasonable proposals for modification of present agreements with and concerning China.
The American Government communicates to the Japanese Government with all earnestness its concern with regard to the potentialities of the situation. This Government cannot acquiesce in any “new order” as envisaged by the discussion therein.
3. As you will observe, there is stated in the note more clearly than has heretofore been done the full broad issue raised by the course of Japan’s present actions in and with regard to China. The recital of facts and implications is objective and dispassionate. The statement of the issues is frank and direct. The note is not minatory in tone.
4. Please reply as soon as possible.