794.00/122
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 1.]
Sir: With reference to the Embassy’s telegram No. 126, May 7, noon,94 and to previous correspondence both written and telegraphic, [Page 84] in regard to the foreign policies of Mr. Sato, recently appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have the honor to enclose herewith a clipping from the Japan Advertiser of May 7, 1937,94a containing the text of the prepared statement which Mr. Sato read to the foreign correspondents on the afternoon of May 6, and the most complete account available to the Embassy of the questions asked by the foreign correspondents and the replies of Mr. Sato.
The prepared statement, which was decidedly optimistic in tone, dealt with various phases of Japan’s foreign relations. It is significant that Mr. Sato undertook to discuss Anglo-Japanese relations first, indicating that the Japanese Foreign Office now places those relations in the forefront of Japan’s foreign policies. Mr. Sato said that Anglo-Japanese relations have taken a turn for the better owing to the recent settlement of some vexing questions, and that he hoped to strengthen the traditional Anglo-Japanese friendship. Turning to the subject of Sino-Japanese relations, Mr. Sato said that no new developments have taken place in those relations since the Nanking negotiations of last year, but that both sides are endeavoring to create a basis for better mutual understanding. In regard to Soviet-Japanese relations, Mr. Sato said that it is urgently necessary to adjust those relations and such adjustment is not impossible as both governments are anxious to improve relations between the two countries. Mr. Sato then defended the German-Japanese anti-Comintern agreement by saying that that agreement is rooted in the cordial friendship between the two countries and that it has no aims other than those stated by the two Governments at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. Turning to American-Japanese relations, Mr. Sato stated that “there is no vexing issue, political or otherwise”, between the United States and Japan, and that the friendship between the two nations is destined to grow with the years. Mr. Sato then discussed briefly Japan’s trade and economic relations. He said that trade agreements had been reached with several countries and that others are in progress of negotiation, and that he hoped that through an international economic conference freedom of trade would eventually be restored.
After Mr. Sato had read his prepared statement, the correspondents were asked if they would like to put any questions. Mr. Sato’s replies to the resulting questions are of considerably more interest, in that they are more specific, than his statement. As was to be expected, the questions had to do primarily with Anglo-Japanese, Sino-Japanese and American-Japanese relations.
In reply to a question in regard to the Anglo-Japanese conversations now proceeding, Mr. Sato said that so far they had consisted only of a very general exchange of views and that it is premature to believe [Page 85] that anything like an agreement has been reached. He also denied that “spheres of influence” in China were being discussed, but admitted that the relations of Great Britain and Japan with China formed a part of the subject of the conversations.
A Chinese correspondent asked several questions in regard to Sino-Japanese relations. Mr. Sato in reply made several non-committal remarks on the expressed Japanese desire to formulate an economic rapprochement with China, and emphasized the theory that it is more important to promote good relations between the two countries than to attempt to settle complicated outstanding questions, such as the North China issues. He advocated the promotion of good feeling by liquidating certain pending questions of minor importance. (This indicates a distinct change in Japan’s method of approach to China. Only a few months ago Japan was insisting upon a general settlement of all outstanding questions in connection with the settlement of minor matters, such as the Chengtu affair. It now appears that Japan will try to lessen Chinese animosity by removing small causes of friction before endeavoring to reach an agreement on larger issues.) Mr. Sato, however, refused to discuss the reasons preventing a settlement of the North China questions. In regard to a question as to whether “special interests” in North China meant “spheres of influence” there, Mr. Sato said that it did not and that Japan was not seeking exclusive rights in that region.
In reply to a question in regard to the rumor that he was planning a non-aggression pact with the United States,95 Mr. Sato said that he had mentioned the idea casually to a reporter of the Tokyo Nichi Nichi) but that the reporter had made too much of the matter. He said that the idea of such a non-aggression pact interested him, but that he had no concrete plan as yet and no approach had been made to the United States. He added that he was only “a little Foreign Minister whose life may not be long”, and that the question was too important for him. Later, in reply to another question, he said that there was no connection between the idea of a non-aggression pact with the United States and the idea of an Anglo-Japanese rapprochement. He added that his idea of a non-aggression pact with the United States was in no way definite and that he “did not mean to put it forward”.
The conversation also included economic questions. A correspondent pointed out the inconsistency between Japan’s asserted desire for freedom of trade and the increasing control of Japan’s foreign trade by the Government. Mr. Sato replied that the control of trade was caused only by the necessity of maintenance of the exchange value of the yen. Asked for his opinion in regard to redistribution of [Page 86] colonies and raw materials, Mr. Sato said that he had no idea of asking for redistribution of colonies, but that Japan wanted fair distribution of raw materials and fair treatment for Japanese goods. It wants free access to sources of raw materials—sources now impeded by economic causes. A correspondent pointed out that the British Empire places no obstacles to the purchase by Japan of any raw materials available in the Empire. Mr. Sato admitted this, but stated that Japan must sell in order to buy, and that obstacles to the importation of Japanese goods in various countries impeded Japan’s ability to purchase raw materials in those countries. In reply to a question as to whether or not Japan is giving thought to the return of Germany’s former colonies (referring undoubtedly to the former German islands north of the Equator now being administered by Japan under mandate) in connection with the question of redistribution of raw materials, Mr. Sato said that Japan is considering the raw material question from the economic point of view.
In regard to Japan’s “southward advance” policy, Mr. Sato stated that Japan has no territorial ambitions to the south and has made no demand for rights of colonization, but does want extension of its trade with the south.
On the whole, Mr. Sato’s remarks were well received by the local correspondents who appreciated his courage in attempting to reply in a not-too-familiar language (English) to the questions put by men who had spent much more time in studying the political relations of the Far East than had Mr. Sato. The correspondents were able easily to disconcert Mr. Sato by their leading questions, especially in regard to economic matters, but Mr. Sato maintained throughout a dignified, diplomatic manner, although his replies often were vague and obviously evasive.
The statement and later remarks of Mr. Sato received no attention in the Japanese press, undoubtedly due to the fact that no reporters of Japanese newspapers were invited to the interview. The English language press of Japan has commented favorably upon Mr. Sato’s policies, as clarified by the interview. The opinion seems to be that Mr. Sato is introducing an air of optimism and of faith in the future of Japan’s foreign relations, and that this air should do much toward clarifying to the world the principles actuating the policies of the present Government. The Japan Times & Mail pointed out that the policies of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, consisting principally of a desire for peace and friendly cooperation, are quite different from the policies of Japan of only a few years ago, when Japan clung to the theory that it could exist in “glorious isolation” and defy the rest of the world.
Respectfully yours,