Dispatch S-39 TOKYO, 18 April 1941

CONFIDENTIAL

I have the honour to report that yesterday I called upon Mr.

Chuichi Ohashi, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, and discussed
with him a number of subjects.

2. Treatment of Foreigners. In the first place I thanked him for
the speech [1] which he recently made to the Governors of
Prefectures in which he spoke of the discredit accruing to Japan
when foreigners were discourteously treated, and appealed for
proper treatment of foreigners by officials and private citizens.

3. As I have already reported in My S-29 [2], the French
Commercial Attache [3] was very badly treated by Police at Kobe
recently, and the Minister's speech was made in pursuance of a
promise which he had given that he would speak strongly on the
matter to Government officials.

4. Herman Solf. I explained to Mr. Ohashi that Australia held Mr.

Solf in internment only on behalf of the Government of the United
Kingdom, and that the Australian Government would act in
accordance with any instructions received from the authorities in
the United Kingdom.

5. I took the opportunity of mentioning that I had recently heard
from the University of Melbourne that classes were being held in
internment camps for the education of prisoners, and that the
Australian Universities were about to confer in order to see
whether it was possible to work out a scheme for holding
examinations for interned students and giving them credit for
University purposes. I said that Australia was following a course
exactly opposite to which Hitler had followed in Czechoslovakia
and Poland, where he had deliberately destroyed higher education.

6. Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes-Broadcast. I referred to the complaint
that Mr. Hughes had made a broadcast on the 26th February last in
which he had used aggressive and provocative language towards
Japan. [4] I explained that Mr. Hughes had made no broadcast on
the date mentioned, that he had not used the words alleged in any
broadcast, and that in a broadcast in February in which he had
referred to Japan, what he said was neither aggressive nor
provocative. I then handed Mr. Ohashi a Note Verbale a copy of
which I enclose [5] to which was attached a copy of the broadcast
of the 16th February.

7. I asked that in view of these facts the Minister's complaint
should be withdrawn. Mr. Ohashi said he would read the broadcast
and would communicate with me upon the matter. [6]

8. Customs Restrictions. Recently the importation of some 274
classes of goods into Australia was prohibited or restricted
apparently as a measure towards conserving Foreign Exchange. (No
information whatever has at the date of writing been sent to the
Legation in respect of this matter, and I have had to handle it as
best I could upon the basis of material published in the Japanese
press. Before I left Australia I was assured that special care
would be taken to supply me with prompt information of any
governmental action which might raise questions in Japan).

9. The material in the Japanese press showed that the action taken
was of a general character and was not specifically directed
against Japan. Nevertheless, as I have reported in my telegram No.

188 [7], the press complained, and alleged that, because Japan was
affected, though only to a slight intent [sic], the measures taken
were intended to be hostile to Japan. The press asked that Japan
should take 'strong action' against Australia.

10. I told Mr. Ohashi that these statements looked like deliberate
attempts to create bad feeling. I reminded him that he himself had
referred, in conversation with the British Ambassador [8], to this
Australian action as an example of hostility to Japan, and I said
that there was not any justification whatever in this case for
such an allegation. The Vice-Minister did not dispute what I said,
but stated that the Government was engaged in examining the
economic restrictions imposed upon Japan trade by the United
States of America, Great Britain, Canada and Australia. He
particularly referred to the refusal of Canada to sell wheat to
Japan. I replied that he knew one reason why restrictions were
imposed, namely that so many goods went through Japan to Germany,
and I said further that he must recognize the position created by
the war and the necessity in the case of all countries concerned
of conserving their resources,
11. Mr. Ohashi asked me more than once in the course of the
conversation whether I had seen any statement made in Japan that
Japan intended to attack Australia. I replied that there was so
much talk and propaganda about Southward expansion and exclusion
of all British interests from Asia, etc. etc., that it was not a
matter for surprise that there was uneasiness in countries south
of Japan.

12. I have observed in the case of both Mr. Matsuoka, the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Ohashi, the Vice-Minister, that they
are apparently most concerned to convince me that Japan has no
designs against Australia. On several occasions they have made
such a statement to me. When I refer to the fact that Australia is
interested in the security of the Islands near Australia and of
all British possessions, it has appeared to me that a different
turn has been given to the conversation.

13. As I have already said in my despatches, my view of the
attitude of Japan in relation to what is called 'Southward
expansion' is that Japan intends to bring about the expansion of
Japanese power by gradual degrees in Indo-China, Thailand, Malaya,
Burma and the Netherlands East Indies, the expansion to be quite
peaceful, unless it is opposed. I am inclined to believe that
there is no definite design against Australia at the present time.

If the earlier expansive steps were successfully taken, Australia
could then be dealt with in due course and as required.

14. As I left the Vice-Minister, I remarked to him that Japan had
made a pact with Russia. I said 'I hope you have better luck with
it than Finland, or Poland, or Estonia, or Latvia, or Lithuania.

They all had pacts with Russia'. The Vice-Minister laughed
unconstrainedly, and did not resent in any way the suggestion that
Russia might not be entirely reliable. From various sources I have
heard that Japan is not inclined to put very much trust in the
agreement with Russia, and that it is doubtful whether even a
single soldier will be removed from Manchukuo as a result of the
pact.

J. G. LATHAM