THE FAR EASTERN CRISIS



gest that to condemn Japanese policy towards China unheard is just
as premature as to applaud it." But it is the last paragraph which
is of particular interest, in that it pointed to the prosperous British
colony of Hong Kong and to the extent of British investments in
Shanghai (which the Secretary of the China Society in London later
stated were even underestimated in that editorial, for while "the Japa-
nese population["] (in Shanghai) "exceeds the British, the total
of
British capital invested there, as shown by a recent investigation of a
neutral economist of repute, is three times as large as that of Japanese
capital. Moreover, as Shanghai does more than half China's foreign
import trade, and the value of the British exports to China (excluding
Manchuria) last year exceeded Japan's, there is ground for claiming
that commercially also our interests in the port are larger than her's.")
  On April 30th the Times also carried the text of a statement tele-
graphed by its correspondent in Tokyo as the only version of the
official spokesman's oral statement of April 17th for which responsi-
bility was accepted by the Tokyo Foreign Office. The text is as
follows: 99
  "Japan has no wish to infringe the independent interests or pros-
perity of China. As regards Manchukuo, we ask the other Powers
to recognize the fair and free actions of that country. Neither in
Manchukuo nor in China have we any territorial ambitions. Japan
is geographically in the position to share in trade profits if China
is united and developed, but the unification and prosperity of China
must be attained by her own awakening, not by the selfish exploita-
tion of other Powers.
  "We have no intention to interfere with the interests of third parties.
If other Powers engage in trade with China for the benefit of China
we welcome it. We have no desire to deviate from the policy of the
open door and equal opportunity, or to infringe treaties, but Japan
objects to any action whatsoever by other Powers that may lead to
disturbance of peace and order in East Asia. Japan bears the respon-
sibility for the maintenance of peace and order in East Asia with
other Asiatic Powers, particularly China. The time has passed when
other Powers or the League can exercise their policies only for the
exploitation of China."
  The press on April 30th carried in general a long report of the
American position, intimating that President Roosevelt himself took'
a serious view of the situation. That afternoon Sir John Simon
made his second statement in the House of Commons, the text of
which was contained in my telegram No. 230 [213], April 30, 3 [5]
p. m. Editorial opinion subsequent to the Foreign Secretary's state-
ment of April 30th was forwarded in the Embassy's despatch No. 675,

' For other versions of the Amau statement, see Foreign Relations, Japan,
1931-1941, vol. i, pp. 224 and 229.



167