756.9412/6: Telegram
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
Tokyo, February 15, 1940—11
a.m.
[Received February 15—10 a.m.]
[Received February 15—10 a.m.]
120. The following points emerged in a confidential talk yesterday with my Netherlands colleague.8
- 1.
- Notice of the abrogation of the Dutch-Japanese Treaty of Arbitration and Conciliation9 was communicated to the Netherlands Government by the Japanese Minister at The Hague on February 10. The Netherlands Minister in Tokyo was not informed of this step either before or after the event.
- 2.
- General Pabst realizes that notice of abrogation was eventually to be expected owing to Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations and the World Court, but the question presents itself as to why this particular moment was chosen for the step. In that connection the Minister takes into consideration the following circumstances which separately might be regarded as trivia but together appear to him to be significant:
- 3.
- Last November a Secretary of the Japanese Legation at The Hague, Hagiwara, told a Dutch newspaper correspondent that Japan intends to demand in the Dutch East Indies the same rights as Soviet Russia has recently secured in the Baltic States, and he is reported to have added that the Netherlands, lacking adequate force, could do nothing about it. The correspondent reported the conversation to the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs who summoned the Japanese Minister. The latter is said to have disowned his Secretary’s remarks and the latter was or will be transferred.
- 4.
- Later the Japanese Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs10 remarked to my Dutch colleague that Japan aims at a close economic rapprochement between Holland in Europe and Holland in the East Indies on the one hand and Japan, China and Manchukuo on the other hand. Subsequently Tani again summoned the Minister and with some embarrassment requested him to regard Tani’s former observation as expressing merely his personal view and not the view of the Japanese Government. From other indications General Pabst is aware that in the first instance Tani was expressing the views of the younger extremist officers in the Foreign Office. Pabst attaches importance to this incident.
- 5.
- Prominent Japanese businessmen have recently told the Netherlands Minister that Japan will expect (a) free access to raw materials in the Dutch East Indies; (b) adequate credits for purchases; and (c) a participatory interest in any future industrial undertakings in the islands. The statements of these men were phrased in polite answer to circumlocutory language but their meaning was perfectly clear. The Minister observed to me that the point concerning credits was obviously based on Japan’s lack of gold and foreign exchange and that with equal obviousness the Japanese are looking ahead to the situation when an American embargo may be declared and enforced.
- 6.
- In careful consideration of the situation as adumbrated by the foregoing indications, the Minister is inclined to regard the notice of abrogation of the treaty as possibly a gesture of thinly veiled intimidation. He added significantly that the gesture will fail to intimidate.
- 7.
- The attitude of the Foreign Office as informally explained to us yesterday presents an interesting contrast to the foregoing. Surprise was expressed that there should be speculation with regard to the reasons for the action of the Japanese Government in denouncing the treaty, as the Japanese Government had taken the precaution to record at the time of signature its intention to seek revision of those provisions relating to Permanent Court of International Justice when Japan’s withdrawal from the League of Nations became definitive. With regard to speculation over the timing of the notice of denunciation, the Foreign Office pointed out that the treaty, which came into force on August 12, 1935, is effective for a period of 5 years and “if not denounced 6 months before expiry of the said period it should be deemed to be tacitly renewed for further successive periods of 5 years”. It added that the Japanese Government desires as soon as possible to bring its obligation under the treaty into line with its withdrawal from the League of Nations and that the consequence of failing at this [Page 6] time to give notice of denunciation would have been a further delay of 5 years in making the desired change.
Grew