Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1941, The Far East, Volume IV

711.94/11–1441

Memorandum by Messrs. Joseph W. Ballantine and Max W. Schmidt, of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs¹⁵

[Washington,] November 14, 1941.

We have noticed that the Japanese Government in its draft presented to the American Ambassador at Tokyo on September 25¹⁶ has throughout that document substituted the words “southwestern Pacific area” for the words “Pacific area” as used in our draft of June 21.¹⁷ For example, we observe that in the preamble, paragraph 6, article 5, the Japanese have substituted the title “Economic Problems in the Southwestern Pacific Area” (underscoring added) for the title in our draft of June 21 “Economic Activity of Both Nations in the Pacific Area” (underscoring added); section V of the Japanese draft of September 25 limits the pledges of both Governments to carry on their economic activities in conformity with the principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations and by peaceful means to the “Southwestern Pacific Area” (underscoring added); in Section VI of the Japanese draft of September 25 it is stated that both Governments undertake not to resort to any measures or actions which may jeopardize stabilization of the situation “in the Southwestern Pacific Area” (underscoring added).

In our draft of June 21 an effort was made to set forth the basic principles upon which a general settlement of Pacific problems might be reached and the underlying purpose, as we interpret it, of these conversations might be realized, namely, peace in the entire Pacific area. In view of that underlying purpose, Section VI, which was designed to set forth the peaceful intent of both Governments throughout the entire Pacific area represents one of the most important parts of the proposed understanding. For example, in Section VI of our draft of June 21 it was stated that conformably with the controlling policy of the proposed understanding both Governments declared it to be their purpose through cooperative effort to contribute to the maintenance and preservation of peace in the Pacific area and both Governments renounced territorial designs in that area; in Section V of our June 21 draft it was stated that the activities of both Japan and the United States in the Pacific Area would be carried on peacefully and in conformity with the principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations; the title of Section V as given in our draft of June 21 was “Economic Activity of Both Nations in the Pacific Area” (underscoring added).

Does not it appear that the Japanese Government in presenting its redraft of September 25 had in mind a limited program as compared with that which this Government had in mind in presenting its June 21 draft and for that matter continues to have in mind in carrying on these conversations? Would it not be desirable for the Japanese Government before seeking a definitive reply from this Government on the basis of the Japanese proposals of September 25 to make clear whether or not it is the desire of the Japanese Government to limit our discussions and any proposals which may be made during those discussions to a small part of the Pacific area or to include the entire area?

On November 7 and again on November 10 the Japanese Ambassador presented a proposal¹⁸ in which it was stated, inter alia, that Japan would accept the application “in all the Pacific areas including China” of the principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations, “on the understanding that the principle is to be applied uniformly to the rest of the world as well”. In Section III of the Japanese draft of September 25 it was stated that economic cooperation between Japan and China following the conclusion of a peace settlement between those two countries would be carried on by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of non-discrimination in international commercial relations and “also with the principle of especially close relationship which is natural between neighboring countries”. If the Japanese draft of September 25 is to stand there would seem to be some discrepancy between the proposal made on November 7 and 10 and the question of economic cooperation between Japan and China as set forth in the proposal of September 25. Before the position of Japan can be clearly understood it would seem to be desirable to have some clarification of this point.

There are, of course, other questions of detail in the Japanese proposals of September 25 which it is believed would need to be worked out but before considering those details it would seem to be best to remove any possibility of misunderstanding on the more basic questions.

The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs in a conversation with Ambassador Grew at Tokyo on November 10¹⁹ suggested that if an agreement should be reached between Japan and the United States a similar agreement should be concluded at the same time between Japan and Great Britain and he suggested that the American Government might be willing to obtain the assent of the British Government to the conclusion of such an agreement. In view of previous intimations from the Japanese Government that it contemplated only a bilateral agreement with the United States we should like to ask what the Japanese Government has in mind in this connection.

The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised with Ambassador Grew and Mr. Wakasugi has raised here with Mr. Ballantine the point in regard to whether we have entered into a state of formal negotiations.²⁰ As we have stated on many occasions to the Japanese Ambassador, we consider that our conversations are still in an exploratory stage and that when we consider that we have reached a basis for negotiations we shall expect before entering into such negotiations to talk matters over with the Chinese, British and other interested governments.

15. An attached notation for the Secretary suggested that he might wish to make remarks to the Japanese Ambassador somewhat along the lines of this draft, but a further notation stated: “Not used.”
16. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, p. 637.
17. Ibid., p. 486.
18. Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, pp. 709, 710, and 715.
19. See ibid., p. 710.
20. See memoranda of November 12 and 13, Foreign Relations, Japan, 1931–1941, vol. ii, pp. 719, 721 and 729, 730.