REFUSAL OF JAPANESE GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE VISIT BY UNITED STATES NAVY VESSEL TO PORTS ON ISLANDS UNDER MANDATE TO JAPAN 49 811.33621/9a: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) WASHINGTON, June 13, 1936-2 p. m. 75. 1. Each year for the past several years the Japanese Government has requested that this Government extend facilities in American territorial waters off the coast of Alaska to two Japanese public vessels and permit the entry of these vessels into harbors in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands 50 that are ordinarily not open to foreign commerce. It was stated in the case of one of these vessels that its purpose in visiting these harbors and waters was to make studies in connection with the protection of fur bearing seals, but in the case of the other vessel it was not suggested that the visits would be made upon the basis of any treaty or formal arrangement between the United States and Japan. This Government has nevertheless acceded to the requests of the Japanese Government in this regard. 2. For some time past there has been a strong undercurrent of conjecture and suspicion regarding harbor developments or fortifications of the Pacific possessions of both the United States and Japan. The American Government has interposed no objection to the visits of Japanese public vessels to territorial waters and closed harbors of Alaska, in the belief that opportunities thus offered for observation by the Japanese vessels would operate to remove any suspicion which might be held by the Japanese Government that there have been carried out any improvements of such character as would do violence to the spirit or letter of the Washington Naval Treaty." 3. We consider it unfortunate that the Japanese Government has not thus far adopted a similarly liberal attitude in the face of allegations that there are being carried out in the Japanese Mandated Islands 52 various improvements which cannot be reconciled with Japan's treaty obligations to refrain from fortifying such Islands. The reluctance of the Japanese Government to give any countenance to irresponsible allegations is understandable, nevertheless we assume that the Japanese Government shares with the American Government the view that persistence of suspicion in this regard promotes mutual distrust and that such suspicion should, therefore, be removed. 4. The Navy Department plans shortly to despatch the destroyer Alden to the Asiatic station. An opportunity will thus be presented 19 For previous correspondence, see Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. ш, pp. 256 ff. 50 See ibid., 1933, vol. 1, pp. 753 ff. 51 Signed February 6, 1922, ibid., 1922, vol. I, p. 247. 52 For Japan's attitude toward this subject, see ibid., 1933, vol. ш, pp. 748 ff. for the Japanese Government to extend to a public vessel of the United States courtesies at the larger unopened ports of the Mandated Islands, as well as at the open ports, and it is our opinion that an invitation by the Japanese Government to the Alden to visit such ports would have results highly beneficial from the point of view of relations between the United States and Japan. 5. Please give our views as above outlined your careful and attentive consideration. If you perceive no objection, please be so good as to present these views orally and informally to the Minister for Foreign Affairs 5 and as on your own initiative put forward the suggestion outlined in paragraph 4 above. 6. Please keep the Department currently informed by telegraph. HULL 811.33621/10: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State TOKYO, June 16, 1936-9 a. m. [Received June 16-1:45 a. m.] 127. Department's 75, June 13, 2 p. m. 1. While I entirely concur in the Department's premises it should be remembered that the Japanese Government has in the past repeatedly refused permission to American naval vessels to visit the unopened ports in the Mandated Islands (Embassy's telegrams numbers 40, April 19, 4 p. m., 1929; 54 70, June 29, 10 a. m., 1929; 55 and 236, December 4, 4 p. m., 1930 56). It seems highly unlikely that the Japanese Government will now change its attitude and I doubt whether even reciprocal treatment of Japanese ships in Alaska would serve to alter its intransigence. In this connection I have before me Department's instruction No. 549, July 19 [16], 1934, and enclosures.57 2. My carefully studied opinion is that even should the Japanese Government acquiesce in the proposal little or no useful information in regard to naval preparations or fortifications in the Mandated Islands would be obtained while acquiescence would open the way to numerous demands on our Government that Japanese naval vessels be allowed to visit American unopened ports. 3. Moreover, our proposal and the almost certain refusal of the Japanese Government to consider it might find their way into the Japanese press and this would merely serve to intensify public suspicion on both sides of the Pacific. 53 Hachiro Arita. See despatch No. 1156, April 25, 1929, Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. ш, p. 256. 55 Ibid., p. 258. 56 See ibid., p. 262, footnote 39. 67 None printed. 4. Unless, therefore, the Department has some special reasons for wishing to reopen the question at the present moment it would seem questionable whether we ought to risk another rebuff coupled with the official and public irritation that might be caused by our making an issue of the matter. 5. So far as I can see the only likelihood of benefit from the proposed approach lies in the fact that it would serve to determine the present attitude of the Japanese Government in regard to closed ports in the Mandated Islands which might assist our Government in any future discussions of the question of fortifications in the Pacific after the expiration of the Washington Naval Treaty. If such a "show down" is desired our approach would no doubt bring it about. 6. If the Department still desires me to carry out the instructions under reference please specify whether the phrase "as on our own initiative" is intended to cover the whole or only the second part of the second sentence in paragraph 5 of the Department's telegram. GREW 811.33621/10: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) 79. Your 127, June 16, 9 a. m. 1. There are two reasons in particular for the Department's suggestion. First, desire to see something done toward alleviating suspicion and improving relations between the two countries. There is no connection with the problem of future discussion of the fortifications question. Second, the Navy Department, in light of persistent refusal by Japan to permit American vessels to enter harbors in the Mandated Islands, is increasingly inclined to urge refusal to permit Japanese vessels to enter certain of our harbors. In addition, we have in mind that, should the Japanese prove not responsive to the suggestion under consideration, your approach and subsequent evidence of disinclination on their part to adopt the suggestion would create a tactical situation affording a potential point of departure for denying (if such action should later seem advisable) to Japanese vessels permission to enter certain American harbors. 2. Department takes into consideration all points mentioned in your paragraphs 1 and 2. Reference your paragraph 3, Department would not wish that this idea be put forward as a proposal. It would need to be put forward by you in the course of a visit on other business to the Foreign Minister and as a suggestion on your part. You might say that you had obtained permission from the Department but that it was not a proposal from or by your Government. You would point out that an invitation offered by the Japanese Government as of its own volition would serve toward dispelling suspicion abroad and improving Japan's reputation in quarters where criticism of Japan's attitude and actions prevails. Need it be feared that the fact of your having made such a suggestion would be made public? If Arita should feel it inadvisable to lay the suggestion before other Japanese authorities, would he not probably tell you that he feels the idea impracticable? If he should choose to lay it before them, would he not do it as on his own initiative? Would not this procedure serve toward preventing there arising questions of definitive refusal or rebuff? It is not our thought to make of the matter an issue. But, in course of time, if the Japanese persist in the attitude which you characterize as "intransigence", there may occur a change in the attitude and practice of this Government toward admitting Japanese vessels to certain of our harbors. Would it not be better for them to take some step toward preventing any such possible development? Please think the matter over with these considerations in mind and telegraph Department your further reaction for our guidance. HULL 811.33621/11: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State TOKYO, June 20, 1936—11 a. m. [Received June 20-6: 50 a. m.] 130. Department's 79, June 18, 6 p. m. 1. The Department has made perfectly clear the purposes of its suggestion as well as the method of approach desired. 2. While still believing that the chances of a favorable response from the Japanese tending to alleviate situation and improve relations are small, I do concur in the desirability of the step on the basis of all the considerations now clearly set forth. 3. The risk of premature publicity can be reduced but not necessarily eliminated by my seeing the Minister at his residence instead of at the Foreign Office. 4. It would be helpful to learn just how urgent the matter is regarded so that I may determine whether to seek some ostensible reason for seeing Arita immediately or whether a natural and therefore more favorable occasion for broaching the subject may be awaited. In Japan an Ambassador's visit to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is regarded as a matter of prime importance and periodical calls merely for the purpose of discussing the general situation are seldom understood. The tendency is to look for "the nigger in the woodpile." I see no reason for minimizing the importance of the subject under reference but shall nevertheless be glad to know whether the delay if any should be a matter of days only or whether it may be a matter of weeks. 5. Obviously I can and shall advance a very strong and logical argument in making the suggestion as on my own initiative. GREW 811.33621/11: Telegram The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew) WASHINGTON, June 25, 1936-noon. 83. Your 130, June 20, 11 a. m. Department, after further consultation with Navy Department, desires you proceed with this matter along lines indicated in Department's 79, June 18, 6 p. m., and previous, and your reply under reference. You should watch for a natural and favorable opportunity such as you suggest. However, the destroyer is scheduled to sail, July 15 and to leave Honolulu on July 21, proceeding to Guam. To have effect at this time, an invitation from the Japanese should be received here before the latter date. Department suggests that you inform us of developments favorable or unfavorable in regard to the making by you of this approach by, say, July 10. PHILLIPS 811.33621/13: Telegram The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State 146. Department's 83, June 25, noon. TOKYO, July 3, 1936-11 a. m. [Received July 3-1:50 a. m.] 1. I have made an appointment to see the Foreign Minister on July 8th, ostensibly to discuss various routine matters and shall take that occasion to broach the subject under reference. 2. Unless the Department perceives objections I believe that it might be helpful on my own initiative, and as a talking point, to call the Minister's attention at that interview to the increasing difficulty met by our Consuls in Japan in obtaining ordinary and customary commercial information due to restrictive measures by the military. The situation in that respect is growing steadily worse. An approach to this subject could be opened by a reference to the Minister's recent appeal to the prefectural Governors to accord greater facilities and courtesies, and to impose fewer restrictions relating to foreigners in Japan. 3. Please instruct.58 GREW 58 The Department expressed approval in telegram No. 88, July 6, noon. |