494.11/83
The Ambassador in Japan (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 29.]
Sir: On June 25 the Foreign Office spokesman issued an “informal statement for the information of newspaper correspondents” to the effect that nationals of Third Powers residing in either one of two countries which are in conflict have in principal a status, as stipulated by the international rules and regulations governing belligerency, like that of any other private individuals of the country in which they reside. To uphold his contention the Foreign Office spokesman cited two precedents in international law, the first being the refusal of the United States Government to accede to the demand of the French Government that compensation be paid for losses sustained by French nationals as a result of the bombardment by the American Navy on July 13, 1854, of Greytown (now San Juan del Norte) in Nicaragua.18 The second precedent cited, prior in point of time, was the bombardment of Copenhagen, without a declaration of war, by the British Fleet in 1807. As will be noted from the enclosed clipping19 from the Japan Advertiser of June 25, 1938, which gives Domei’s version of the statement, the spokesman remarked that the American note refusing the demand of the French Government after the bombardment of Grey-town, had cited the case of the British attack on Copenhagen, when no claim was made by any third Powers to the British Government for compensation for losses sustained by their nationals who were residing in Copenhagen at the time.
Therefore, it would appear by inference that the Foreign Office spokesman holds the view that nationals of third Powers who have owned property in China during the present hostilities are not entitled to claim compensation from Japan for losses resulting from these hostilities. The Foreign Office spokesman would appear to base his [Page 404] argument on the American Government’s contention of 1854 that nationals of third Powers residing in a country which has “no ability to protect” their property are not entitled to make a demand to another country for compensation for the loss of such property and that the country in which such foreigners are residing is responsible for whatever losses result from such lack of protection.
It will be recalled that in its note dated August 2, 1933,20 the Japanese Government maintained the view that it was under no obligation whatever to pay any indemnity for the damages sustained by nationals of third countries in Shanghai or elsewhere as a result of the military operations conducted by Japanese forces against the Chinese in Manchuria and Shanghai subsequent to September 18, 1931.* The Japanese Government at that time based its contention on the argument that the Japanese military operations in Manchuria and at Shanghai were nothing more nor less than “self-defensive measures taken against the acts of provocation on the part of the Chinese” and that these “self-defensive” measures constituted, and were carried out as, an integral part of the common measures of defense concerted by the Powers interested.
While at the beginning of the present hostilities both in north China and at Shanghai the Japanese authorities asserted that their military and naval forces were acting in self-defense, this point of view has necessarily been relinquished as the conflict has progressed and as the Japanese Government has clarified its aims toward China. It is therefore hardly likely that the Japanese will advance the plea of “self-defense” should they refuse to pay compensation to foreigners residing in China for losses suffered during the present hostilities.
Respectfully yours,