893.102S/1890: Telegram
The Chargé in Japan (Dooman) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 19—9:27 a.m.]
486. Department’s 291, September 17, 10 p.m.85
1. In considering the question as to the advisability of making the approach to the Japanese Government suggested in paragraph 4 of the Department’s telegram under reference there occur to me two questions: (a) Can the two issues raised by the Japanese in Shanghai, namely revision of the Shanghai defense plans and policing of extra-Settlement roads, be successfully resolved by a new agreement to be concluded with the Japanese which would also embrace reaffirmation by the Japanese of the fundamental rights of the American and other governments in Shanghai? (b) Should discussions with regard to these issues be continued through existing channels or should there be set up in Shanghai new machinery for that purpose?
2. With regard to (a) above, the two issues specified would be regarded, I believe, by the Japanese Government as coming definitely under the sole jurisdiction of the Japanese military authorities in China. The Japanese Government has clearly shown during the entire period of the China conflict that it will not intervene even in matters which, although not primarily of a military character, are considered to be ancillary to the carrying out of military operations.
The letter from the Foreign Office quoted in our 470, September 12, 5 p.m.,86 in effect states in the third paragraph thereof that a specific question, namely navigation on the Yangtze which involves a fundamental right of the foreign powers, is regarded by the Japanese [Page 82] as subordinate to Japanese military needs and that the Japanese do not propose to discuss definite settlement of individual cases of this character apart from other far-reaching problems. The two issues under reference raised at Shanghai are presumably being considered by the Japanese to be purely self-contained problems rising out of existing conditions and I believe that the Japanese will insist that they must therefore be dissociated from fundamental rights of other powers and be settled in such manner as to serve the needs of the Japanese military. My view is therefore that there is little or no prospect of any settlement being reached along the lines suggested in paragraph 3 of the telegram under reference as the second of two alternative courses of action.
3. With reference to (b) my belief is that future discussions, whether they have in view a new agreement as envisaged by the Department or maintenance of the hitherto existing position with such changes as may be agreed upon, should be left on the part of the United States in the hands of the Consul General. The personal equation in dealing with the Japanese is always an extremely important factor; and I have heard here nothing but expressions of profound admiration and respect for Gauss.
- See footnote 80a, p. 79.↩
- Vol. iii, p. 454.↩