893.01 Manchuria/119
The Consul General at Mukden (Myers) to the Minister in China (Johnson)9
Sir: Referring to this Consulate General’s despatch No. 556 of March 16, 1932,10 to the Legation at Peiping regarding the inauguration of the new state at Changchun, I have the honor to report upon the government of the new state of Manchoukuo.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A significant news item in the local press today is that the new government will engage Japanese and other foreigners to give guidance for the introduction of administrative reforms. It is quite evident that Japanese holding key positions will be found in every department of the new government. The phrase “other foreigners”, if not meaningless, possibly refers to a few “white” Russians who may be given minor positions.
It has been learned that the position of Japanese adviser will be shortly abolished and that the existing advisers will be given responsible official positions in the government, as is apparently being done at Changchun. The Japanese advisers, it has been noted, have already adopted Chinese dress and in many cases it is difficult to distinguish them from Chinese. It is claimed that they will also adopt Chinese names. These changes are to be effected before the arrival of the League Commission.
This government would seem to have the attributes of a dictatorship rather than those of other recognized forms of government, the dictator, however, not being Mr. Henry P’u Yi, the Chief Executive, but General Honjo, Commander-in-Chief of the Kuantung Army. The title of “Regent” which is favored as the English equivalent of the Chinese characters “Chih Cheng” is not an inappropriate designation for a vicarious ruler. Already P’u Yi probably realizes that he is no longer his own master as must the heads of the provincial governments who are always under the surveillance of one or more Japanese “protectors”, gendarmes in plain clothes.
It is not difficult to discover the purpose of the new state. That it is the handiwork of Japanese there can be no doubt. Japan started on a career of empire building on September 18, 1931, the significance of which was probably only realized by a few of its most ardent and far-seeing militarists. Link by link the chain that binds Manchuria [Page 603] to Japan has been forged and with the formation of the new state the work has been practically completed. A subservient Japanese press reflects the keenest interest on the part of the Japanese in the establishment of the new state which has been heralded far and wide as the beginning of a new era not only for Manchuria but for Japan as well. It is pictured as offering dazzling opportunities for the employment of Japanese and Korean immigrants, for the investment of Japanese capital for the development of its boundless resources and finally for assuring Japan’s position among the first-class powers. Except by the propagandist who is endeavoring to mould foreign public opinion, Japanese seem to take it for granted that Manchuria is at last a Japanese appanage and that Japanese interests only need be considered, notwithstanding the free use of such conciliatory phrases as the “open door” and “equal opportunity” which in practice are readily susceptible to varied interpretation and even to manipulation. The purport of these observations is that a public opinion has been created throughout the Japanese Empire which may be expected to prevent any government in Japan from agreeing to accept any settlement of the Manchurian situation based on the status quo ante even with full recognition of all rights and privileges accorded by treaty. Manchuria has become in fact a dependency of Japan and any Japanese government that would endeavor to sever or loosen its bonds would be promptly disowned by its constituency as well as invite wholesale disaffection within the ranks of the “puppet” Chinese officialdom. In view of the apparent absence of any genuine sentiment on the part of the Chinese in favor of the new state and of their universal dislike and distrust of the Japanese, the withdrawal of Japanese control would result in the collapse of the new government with consequent reactions on Japanese interests and privileges. It seems, therefore, that despite Japanese protestations to the contrary Japan is committed to a policy which ends in annexation. Competent observers have noted the great similarity between the events of the past few weeks in Manchuria and those of a quarter century ago in Korea. History is probably repeating itself but with different trappings and possibly with more circumvention.
Respectfully yours,