the Americas. One after another we are liquidating the causes of friction and misunderstanding between us. A new confidence has been established. This summer's Pan-American Conference will meet in an atmosphere of unprecedented friendliness. What we have achieved in that one area is a measure of what we desire to achieve through the whole range of our international relationships.

That achievement is wholly consistent with our program of national defense. It is an expression of the very objectives on which our national defense is based.

We have a disinterested, consistent and successful foreign policy. In it we give no thought to a war of aggression on the part of the United States. We stand firmly by our solemn treaty obligations renouncing war as an instrument of national policy.

Very sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

71

Press Releases, vol. XIV, p. 486

Statement by the Honorable Norman H. Davis, Chairman of the United States Delegation, London Naval Conference, May 13, 1936 29

[Extracts]

A full report of the recent Naval Conference in London and of the treaty which was signed on March 25 last has been made to the President, who in turn has transmitted this to the Senate. I should like, however, to make certain additional observations with regard to the treaty that is now before you for ratification.

At the outset, I must state that there are two regrettable but unavoidable omissions in this treaty. One is that two of the Washington Treaty powers, Japan and Italy, have not yet signed it; the other is that this treaty does not provide for any reduction in total tonnage or for a continuance of the principle of quantitative limitation established by the two previous treaties. The facts are, however, that it was not possible to secure agreement to that effect because all of the naval powers represented at the Conference, with the exception of Great Britain and the United States, refused to enter into a new treaty which continued the limitations and the ratios established by the present treaties. In fact, Japan left the Conference a

"Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Hearings on the London Naval Treaty.

few weeks after it began because the other powers were unable to accept as a basis for negotiation the Japanese proposal for a so-called common upper limit which, in effect, was to scrap the present system of naval limitation and, without regard to relative needs and security, to change the present ratio of 5-5-3 to 3-3-3 or 5-5-5. While recognizing Japan's right to equal security, which we believe was achieved under the Washington and London Treaties, it was obviously impossible to accept the Japanese proposal because, owing to the difference in relative needs and vulnerability, naval parity would give to Japan naval superiority.

As it was impossible to agree to continue existing treaties beyond the end of this year, it was necessary, after the Japanese withdrawal from the Conference, for the remaining powers to decide whether to throw up their hands and quit or whether to proceed to the negotiation of such a treaty as might be possible, in order to prevent if possible the chaotic situation that would develop upon the termination of the existing treaties in case there should be nothing to take their place.

Notwithstanding the difficulties that were inherent in this situation, it was decided to continue in conference, with the result that after considerable time and patient effort we succeeded in negotiating a treaty which, while preserving in a modified but practical way the principle of naval limitation, contains new and important provisions which largely offset the omissions.

Although some things which we wanted are not in this treaty, there is nothing in it to which we object. There is, in fact, no single provision of the treaty which is objectionable or unfair to any participating state or to any of the other naval powers, but there is much that should prove to be mutually beneficial. It can thus be hoped that those states who have not yet signed the treaty will readily adhere to its provisions.

When one considers the difficulties which stood in the way of negotiating any treaty whatsoever, and what the situation would be without any treaty at all, it is indeed a source of real satisfaction that we were able to achieve as much as we did. We were indeed fortunate in being able to negotiate a treaty which not only preserves a structure of naval limitation but which establishes a basis for further progress toward naval reduction under more favorable conditions than now exist.

While the new naval treaty is less rigid and less far-reaching than the previous treaties, it has many advantages, and its lack of rigidity may well be one of them. The fact is that the Washington Treaty has been denounced because of its rigidity, and for the same reason

the London Treaty could not be renewed, whereas the new treaty, which is more flexible, may be more enduring and prove in the long run to be more practical. At any rate, we have nothing to lose in trying it out, and possibly much to gain.

72

711.94/1112

Memorandum by the Secretary of State Regarding a Conversation With the Japanese Ambassador to Great Britain (Yoshida)

[WASHINGTON,] June 12, 1936.

Mr. Yoshida, Japanese Ambassador to England, came in and stated that he was very desirous of promoting better relations and better understanding between our two countries. He said that the one big fact which he wanted the American people to recognize was the immense and rapidly growing population of Japan and the absolute necessity for more territory for their existence in anything like a satisfactory way. He referred to the fact that there was misunderstanding and misapprehension on the part of our people in this respect as it related to Japanese movements in and about China; that this also was probably true as to the British; that the Japanese armaments were not intended for war against any particular country, especially us, but that Japanese naval officials were always undertaking to create additional vacancies and additional room for promotion, etc., etc. I did not tell him that this by itself was not entirely appealing. He expressed an earnest desire for conference, collaboration and, without alliances, such relationships as would work out any questions arising in an amicable and fairly satisfactory way. He expressed his purpose to have a number of conversations with Ambassador Bingham, as well as with the British officials, on these subjects, with the view to the former conversations getting back to me.

In reply, I told Mr. Yoshida that I would speak frankly but in the friendliest possible spirit and say that the impression among many persons in this country was that Japan sought absolute economic domination, first of eastern Asia, and then, of other portions as she might see fit; that this would mean political as well as military domination in the end; that the upshot of the entire movement would be to exclude countries like the United States from trading with all of those portions of China thus brought under the domination or controlling influence so-called of Japan; that this presented a serious question to first-class

countries with commercial interests in every part of the world, for the reason that, for instance, my country stood unqualifiedly for the principle of equality of commercial opportunity and industrial right alike in every part of the world; and that it would be strange and impracticable for my country to stand for this doctrine with the announcement always that it qualified same by applying it to only one-half of the world and one-half of the world's population. I remarked that I could say in all candor that this Government had never by the slightest word or intimation suggested to the people or officials of the 20 Latin American countries as to what amount of trade they should conduct with Germany, or Great Britain, or Japan, or any other country.

I continued with the statement that there was no reason, in my judgment, why countries like Japan, the United States and England, could not in the most amicable spirit, and with perfect justice and fairness to each, agree to assert and abide by the worldwide principle of equality in all commercial and industrial affairs, and each country solemnly agree that it would not resort to force in connection with the operation of this rule of equality, and why Governments like the three mentioned could not sit down together and in a spirit of fair dealing and fair play confer and collaborate and not cease until they had found a way for amicable and reasonable adjustments or settlements. I said that this would wipe out and eliminate 90% of all the occasions for friction between the nations. I then repeated what I told him I had stated to Ambassador Saito, which was that neither Japan, the United States, England, nor any other country, would be able for a generation to supply the needed capital of many billions of dollars for the reasonable internal improvements and development of purchasing power in China and similar Asiatic localities; that their purchasing power was down to next to nothing at present; that there was ample room for long years to come for three or four countries like those just mentioned to supply all the capital they would have available, with the result that increased purchasing power would afford markets for most all of what all of the countries combined would have for sale in that part of the world, and that in any event any questions or problems arising in this connection could and should be solved in the same amicable and fair spirit to which I had already referred. I assured the Ambassador more than once of my high opinion and personal regard for his people, and especially his statesmen, and that I was anxious to see all parts of the world develop and go forward with every kind of progress to the fullest extent. He expressed his interest in the views I offered and indicated a disposition to collaborate.

I then carefully and rather fully defined and described the machinery, the policy and the scope, of our present reciprocal trade agreements program, which, I said, related to real international trade recovery to near normal and the restoration of conditions of peace. I added that for more than two years this Government had unselfishly, and at the sacrifice of bilateral trading, been making an earnest fight thus to induce other countries to lower their excessive barriers and permit some 20 billions of dollars of international trade by degrees to be restored. I stated that if and as such increased trade was realized, Japan would receive her substantial share without any effort or contribution on her part, as would other trading countries, and that this would be far more valuable than the limited amount of trade to be secured by purely bilateral bartering and bargaining, such as nations are practicing today, at the expense of triangular and multilateral trade; that we in this country had at the risk of our political situation been carrying forward this broad program; that on account of the opposition sentiment here, it was exceedingly hurtful to the progress of our movement when, at a critical stage as at present, a country like Japan sent in abnormal quantities of highly competitive products to the extent of 20 or 40 or 50% of our domestic production; that this would present a different question in other and ordinary circumstances, but that at this critical stage, as in the recent case of certain cotton textiles and other commodities sent in by Japanese businessmen in unusual quantities, such practice was seriously undermining and jeopardizing the success of our entire program. I stated that I did not desire to be misunderstood; that it was this outside interference at a time when it was extremely dangerous and harmful to the success of the movement on account of the large opposition sentiment in this country; that I felt a trading country like Japan, which would share to the extent of billions of dollars in the world trade which it was proposed to restore by our pending reciprocity program, could well afford to make a slight contribution to the movement by cautioning its nationals to refrain at the psychological moment from seriously embarrassing and handicapping us here by sending in abnormal quantities of competitive products compared with the amount of our domestic production.

I said I could make this plainer by suggesting that if the Argentine were carrying forward our reciprocity program under great difficulties, and just at the critical stage my country should export unusual quantities of beef, wheat, wool and corn in to the Argentine, which, like my own country, produces each of these commodities for export, unquestionably this would seriously endanger the success of such