There is attached a draft of a proposed message to Congress, to which
draft the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War made material
contributions,30a and the officers of the Department made
further contributions, which together comprise the draft of the proposed
message.
In order to get this to you today it has not been possible carefully to
go over this draft a second time. In fact, I myself have not had time to
read it at all critically, but expect to do so over the week-end and
give you the benefit of any further comment or suggestions.
I also enclose a draft by the Far Eastern officials of a possible message
from you to the Emperor of Japan. My personal view continues as on
yesterday to be that its sending will be of doubtful efficacy, except
for the purpose of making a record. It might even cause such
complications as Col. Stimson and I referred to on yesterday.
If you should send this message to the Emperor it would be advisable to
defer your message to Congress until we see whether the message to the
Emperor effects any improvement in the situation. I think we agree that
you will not send message to Congress until the last stage of our
relations, relating to actual hostility, has been reached.
I think you will desire to have any message to the Emperor dispatched in
code to Ambassador Grew for communication by him to the Emperor through
appropriate channels.
[Annex 1]
Draft Message of President Roosevelt to Congress
31
I come before you to report to you on serious danger which is
threatening this country and its interests in the Far East.
Relations between the United States and the Japanese Empire have
reached a stage where I consider it incumbent upon me to lay before
you the essential facts of the situation and their extremely serious
implications.
In the closing decades of the eighteenth century, American traders
began the development of our direct contacts with eastern Asia. A
little over a hundred years ago, in 1833, the United States entered
into its first Far Eastern treaty, a treaty with Siam32—in which treaty there was made provision for
perpetual peace and for dependable relationships. By that time
American missionaries were beginning to work in Eastern Asia. Ten
years later Caleb Gushing began the negotiation of our first treaty
with China, and in 1844 that treaty, containing provision for
most-favored-nation treatment, was concluded.33 In 1853,
Commodore Perry knocked on Japan’s doors, and in the next years
those doors began to open. From the earliest days to this day, the
United States has consistently urged in the Far East, as it has done
in all parts of the world, the fundamental importance of fair and
equal treatment among nations.
Throughout the period of our official relations with the Far Eastern
area there has been a general recognition by responsible officials
of this country and by our people that procedures conducive to
respect for the sovereign rights of countries of the Far East
coincide to a remarkable degree with the traditional liberal
concepts of the people of this country and the legitimate and best
interests of the United States. As a concomitant of this country’s
espousal of the principle of equal treatment there has been its
support of the principle of respect for the territorial and
administrative integrity of the countries with which it has had
relations. Throughout the period when there were indications that
various nations were inclined to aggress against Japan, the United
States always used its influence in opposition to every
manifestation of such inclination on the part of no matter what
country. Simultaneously and subsequently, the United States has done
the same in regard to China.
[Page 690]
Just before the end of the nineteenth century, the United States
acquired a new position and, with that position, assumed important
responsibilities in the western Pacific. Sovereignty over the
Philippine Islands passed from Spain to this country. At that time
there was going on what was known as the “scramble for concessions”
in China and there was talk about a possible partitioning of China.
It was then that the American Government took its stand on the
principle of the “open door” and declared that it was its policy to
“seek a solution which may bring about permanent peace to China …
protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaty and
international law, and safeguard for the world the principle of
equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire”.
Since 1898, the American Government has been conducting in the
Philippines the unprecedented experiment of acquainting an Asiatic
people with the methods of personal freedom and national
self-government that are practiced by our own Republic. Our constant
aim has been to develop the Filipino people into a self-governing
and independent commonwealth. At the same time, this farsighted
experiment has been and is of far-reaching importance to us and to
other peoples. It is important to the material welfare of the United
States that there should exist in the western Pacific a nation
friendly to us by virtue of close association and profitable
relations with us. Our presence in the Philippines has helped make
known to the peoples of the Orient the name, the culture, the
commerce and the good repute of the United States. It has helped to
establish and to stabilize our relations in general with those
regions of the Pacific from which there come materials which are
indispensable to our economy not only in time of peace but even more
in time of war and to which we sell in increasing amounts our
manufactured products and some of our raw materials.
In 1908 the major principles of American Far Eastern policy were
agreed to by Japan and the United States in an exchange of
notes.34 In those notes, the two governments jointly
declared not only that they were determined to support “by all
pacific means at their disposal the independence and integrity of
China and the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and
industry of all nations in that Empire”, but that it was “the wish
of the two governments to encourage the free and peaceful
development of their commerce on the Pacific Ocean” and that “the
policy of both governments” was “directed to the maintenance of the
existing status quo” in that region.
[Page 691]
In 1921 nine powers possessed of interests in the western
Pacific—China, Japan and the United States among them—met in
conference in Washington. The all-comprehensive objective of the
conference was maintenance of peace. The methods envisaged were (1)
reduction of armament and (2) regulation of competition in the
Pacific and Far Eastern areas. Treaties and agreements interlocking
in character and contingent upon one another were concluded.
Especially important among these were the Nine Power Treaty which
contained pledges to respect the sovereignty of China and the
principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all
nations throughout China; and the treaty (among the United States,
the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan) on limitation of naval
armament.35
In 1929 the nations of the world entered into a treaty—the Pact of
Paris, or Kellogg Pact36—wherein
all agreed to resolve controversies among and between themselves by
none but peaceful means.
In 1931, the Japanese army began its seizure of Manchuria. The
Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations endeavored to
induce Japan to revert to peaceful procedures, and the Government of
the United States gave its support to that effort. While the
occupation of Manchuria by Japanese armed forces was still in
progress, the Government of the United States sent to the Japanese
and Chinese Governments on January 7, 1932 identic notes37 declaring
that the United States could not regard as legal and did not intend
to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which might be
brought about by means contrary to the provisions of the Pact of
Paris.
In 1934 the present administration welcomed an approach made by the
Japanese Government in the form of a friendly note in which Japan’s
Minister for Foreign Affairs stated38 that
he firmly believed that no question existed between the two
governments that was fundamentally incapable of amicable solution
and that Japan had “no intention whatever to provoke and make
trouble with any other power”. Our Secretary of State, Cordell Hull,
replied39 that he
highly appreciated and reciprocated these cordial sentiments, that
he fully concurred in the opinion that no question existed between
the two countries which was fundamentally incapable of amicable
solution, and that he received with special gratification the
statement that Japan had no intention whatever to provoke and make
trouble with any other power.
[Page 692]
Almost immediately, however, there came indications of an attitude on
the part of the Japanese Government inconsistent with these
provisions in so far as concerned the rights and interests of other
countries in China. Our Government felt compelled to make a
statement in the course of which we said, through our Ambassador in
Tokyo, that in this Government’s opinion treaties can lawfully be
modified or be terminated only by processes prescribed or authorized
or agreed upon by the parties to them and that in the opinion of the
American people and the American Government no nation can, without
the assent of the other nations concerned, rightfully endeavor to
make conclusive its will in situations where are involved the
rights, obligations and legitimate interests of other sovereign
states.40
In December 1934, the Japanese Government gave notice of its
intention to terminate the naval treaty of February 6, 1922.41
Japan, already engaged in expansion of her armed forces, thereafter
intensified that expansion and in increasing measure engaged in
activities obviously directed toward extension of her domination of
neighboring areas and destructive of the lawful rights and interests
in those areas of other countries, including the United States.
In July 1937 the armed forces of Japan embarked upon large-scale
military operations against China. Soon her leaders were openly
declaring that it was their determination to achieve and maintain
for Japan a dominant position in the entire region of eastern Asia,
the western Pacific and the southern Pacific. If they achieved this
they would be masters of an area containing almost one-half of the
population of the world and they would have arbitrary control of the
sea lanes and the trade routes of an enormous area.
In the process of their military operations against and in China,
Japan’s armed forces have taken American lives, wounded or otherwise
physically abused American citizens (men, women and children), sunk
American vessels—including a naval vessel—imperiled other American
vessels, bombed American hospitals and churches and schools,
destroyed a great deal of American property, ruined much American
business, greatly interfered with American trade, and, in general,
shown utter disregard for our rights—in law and under treaties: all
this over and above and in addition to the incalculable damage that
they have done to China and the suffering which they have caused to
the Chinese people; to say nothing of the injuries which they have
done to other nations and to civilization and to the cause of peace
and good will among men.
[Page 693]
During the past decade the enlightened policies of the American
Government, as exemplified in our record in the Far East, have been
endangered by a world-wide scheme of world-wide conquest developed
by the so-called Axis powers. In Europe, Germany and Italy have
without provocation or excuse attacked and conquered and reduced to
economic and political slavery some sixteen other countries. In the
Far East, the Government of Japan associated itself with Germany and
Italy in 1936, and concluded with them in 1940 a treaty of alliance
avowedly aimed at the United States. Those powers have been
attempting to carry out a scheme of unlimited conquest. In flat
defiance of its covenants Japan has invaded and sought to overthrow
the Government of China. Step by step its armed forces, passing
through the China Sea in the immediate proximity of the Philippine
Islands, have invaded and taken possession of Indochina. Today they
are openly threatening an extension of this conquest into the
territory of Thailand. That step, if taken, would place them where
they would directly menace, to the North, the Burma Road, China’s
lifeline, and, to the South, the port and Straits of Singapore
through which gateway runs the commerce of the world, including our
own, between the Pacific and the Indian Ocean.
To the eastward of the Philippines, Japan has extended her
threatening activities through the Caroline and Marshall Islands
where, in violation of the mandate under which she received the
custody of those islands, she has been secretly establishing naval
and air bases and fortifications directly on the line between the
United States and the Philippines.
By these steps Japan has enveloped with threatening forces the
western, northern, and eastern approaches to the Philippines. Should
this process go further, it will completely encircle and dangerously
menace vital interests of the United States.
And while all this is going on, Japan, bound to Germany and Italy in
a treaty wherein those three powers pledged one another that if any
one of them is “attacked” by an outside power not already at war,
the other allies will assist that one of their members by economic,
political and military means; and Japan’s militant leaders declare
that they will interpret their obligations under this commitment in
whatever manner they may deem best suited to their own needs and
purposes.
Simply stated, what we are confronted with in the Far East is a
repetition of the tactics pursued by Hitler in Europe. The methods
which Hitler has used with temporary success and which are being
faithfully imitated by Japan, consist of a gradual expansion of
power and control over neighboring peoples by a carefully planned
and executed progressive infiltration, penetration and encirclement
through which one nation after another is subdued and enslaved
either by actual force or by threats of force.
[Page 694]
After this fashion and pursuing this policy of conquest by force,
Japan established herself in Korea; worked her way into and finally
seized Manchuria; has sought for the past four and a half years to
subjugate China; has, during the period of our negotiations with
her, invaded Indochina; and now, threatens with imminent attack
various neighboring areas including even the Philippines.
This situation, precipitated solely by Japanese aggression, holds
unmistakable threats to our interests especially our interest in
peace and in peaceful trade, and to our responsibility for the
security of the Philippine Archipelago. The successful defense of
the United States, in a military sense, is dependent upon supplies
of vital materials which we import in large quantities from this
region of the world. To permit Japanese domination and control of
the major sources of world supplies of tin and rubber and tungsten
would jeopardize our safety in a manner and to an extent that cannot
be tolerated. Along with this would go practical Japanese control of
the Pacific.
Unless the present course of events in the Far East is halted and
considerations of justice, humanity and fair dealing are restored,
we will witness in that region of the world precisely what has
already transpired throughout the continental limits of Europe where
Hitler seeks dominion by ruthless force.
A program on the part of any country for subjugation and exploitation
of a huge population and a vast portion of the world is of
incalculable concern to every other nation.
Throughout the period in which Japan has been making it clear that
such is her program, the Government of the United States had
endeavored to persuade the Government of Japan that Japan’s best
interests lie in maintaining and cultivating friendly relations with
the United States and with all other countries that believe in
orderly and peaceful processes.
For the past eight months, conversations have been carried on between
the Secretary of State and the President, on behalf of the United
States, and the Foreign Minister and Premier of Japan, for the
purpose of arriving, if possible, at some understanding agreeable to
both Governments.
Throughout this entire period, the Government of the United States
has been steadfast in its support of basic principles which should
govern international relations. The principles for which we have
stood in these discussions may be summarized as follows:—The
principle of inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty
of each and all nations; the principle of non-interference in the
internal affairs of other countries; the principle of equality,
including equality of commercial opportunity and treatment; and the
principle of reliance upon international cooperation and
conciliation for the prevention and pacific settlement of
controversies and for improvement of international [Page 695] conditions by peaceful methods and
processes. Basically these are the principles of peace, law and
order and fair dealing among nations.
In our negotiations, we have kept in close contact with the
Governments of Great Britain, Australia, the Netherlands Indies, and
China. We have found those governments in complete agreement with
our position. In every suggestion that we have made to Japan, the
rights and vital interests of those and other nations have been
faithfully represented. In the position which we have maintained we
have had the moral support of these nations. We also have been given
assurance of their material and military support if there comes
resort to force.
We have made every effort of which we were capable toward reaching a
fair and workable agreement. With the utmost of forbearance and
patience, we have sought to bring Japan into commitments which would
bring its practices into line with the principles which we advocate
and in which the Japanese Government declares that it believes.
These efforts have failed. Japan has refused to change her position
or her practices, and relations between the two nations are
threatened with rupture.
The supreme question presented to this country along with many other
countries by the Hitler-dominated movement of world conquest is that
of self-defense.
The fundamental issue between this country and Japan is not very
different from the fundamental issue between this country and Nazi
Germany. Concisely stated, it is an issue of autocracy versus self-determination, an issue of master
and slave relationship among the peoples of the earth versus independence of nations and freedom of
peoples.
The whole world is presented with the issue whether Germany, Italy
and Japan are to conquer and rule the earth or are to be dissuaded
or prevented, by whatever processes may be necessary, from pursuit
of policies of conquest.
The question immediately presented in our Far Eastern affairs is
whether the United States is or is not to stand by while Japan goes
forward with a program of conquest by force—in disregard of law, in
disregard of treaties, in disregard of others’ rights and interest,
in disregard of any and all conventions or considerations of
morality and of humanity—now in eastern Asia and the western
Pacific, ultimately further afield.
In our own councils there are a variety and a composite of issues:
There are issues between principles and opportunism; between
confindence and fear; between reality and illusion; between clear
understanding and confused misunderstanding; between wisdom and
folly; between being farsighted and being shortsighted; between the
concept [Page 696] of peace at any
price and a concept of peace at a price commensurate with the value
of peace; between accurate appraisal and inaccurate appraisal of our
own strength; between full use and fractional use of our material
and moral resources.
Japan’s policy of conquest and exploitation which is now being
carried out in China has already utterly destroyed in the portions
of China occupied by Japan the peaceful and profitable commercial
relations which the United States had previously enjoyed there. It
has devastated a nation which for many centuries by its devotion to
the arts of peace and commerce was the most stabilizing influence on
the western side of the Pacific Ocean. It threatens to transform a
peaceful continent into one dominated by the military and leadership
of Japan and devoted to the practice of war.
This Japanese procedure of conquest and exploitation is encircling
the Philippine Islands. It threatens the commerce of those Islands
and endangers their physical safety.
If it were to be successful, it would destroy the farsighted
experiment which America has been conducting in those Islands and
terminate the expectation of their independence. It would destroy
the mutually profitable commerce which exists between those Islands
and the United States, a commerce upon which the high standard of
living of the Filipinos now depends. It would ruin the lifelong
efforts and investments of thousands of American citizens who have
transferred their homes and business activities to the Philippines
on the faith that American principles of freedom and American
methods of government would continue in those Islands. It would
forever terminate the prestige and influence of the United States
which the American experiment in the Philippine Islands has been
establishing throughout the Orient.
If the Japanese should carry out their now threatened attacks upon
and were to succeed in conquering the regions which they are
menacing in the southwestern Pacific, our commerce with the
Netherlands East Indies and Malaya would be at their mercy and
probably be cut off. Our imports from those regions are of vital
importance to us. We need those imports in time of peace. With the
spirit of exploitation and destruction of commerce which prevails
among the partners in the Axis Alliance, and with our needs what
they are now in this period of emergency, an interruption of our
trade with that area would be catastrophic.
We do not want war with Japan, and Japan does not want war with this
country. If, however, war should come, the fault and the
responsibility will be those of Japan. The primary cause will have been pursuit by Japan of a policy of
aggression—in the course of which Japan’s militant militaristic
leadership has disregarded law, violated treaties, [Page 697] impaired rights, destroyed
property and lives of our nationals, inflicted horrible sufferings
upon peoples who are our friends, interfered with our trade, ruined
the legitimate business of many of our nationals, compelled us to
make huge expenditures for defensive armament, made threats against
us, put and kept many of our people in a constant state of anxiety,
and, in general, made Japan a world nuisance and made of Japan a
menace to our security and to the cause of peace, of freedom and of
justice.
Our policy in relations with Japan should be and is influenced not by
fear of what attacks Japan, acting unlawfully and with resort to
force may make upon us but by determination on our part to give the
utmost support of which we are reasonably capable to the fundamental
principles of order and security and justice to which we have been
and are committed, with confidence that it is within our capacity to
withstand any attack which anyone may make upon us because of our
pursuit of that course.
