893.114N 16 Manchuria/5
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (Grew)
Sir: The receipt is acknowledged of your despatch No. 212, dated December 2, 1932,54 in regard to a loan negotiated by the present [Page 130] regime in Manchuria with a syndicate of Japanese banks, the security for which is to be a surtax on salt and the anticipated profits of an opium monopoly in Manchuria.
In this connection, the Department refers to its instruction No. 157 of December 14, 1932,54a to which was attached a memorandum dated December 6, 1932,55 outlining certain views of the Department in regard to the loan under reference. Although, as indicated in the enclosure to your despatch No. 212, of December 2, 1932, it would appear that an agreement covering the loan under discussion was actually signed on November 19, 1932, and although, as far as the Department is aware, the Japanese banking interests concerned have failed to offer participation in such loan to the American, British and French signatories to the Consortium Agreement of October 15, 1920,56 the Department is not inclined to take any action in regard to this matter unless and until the subject is brought to its attention by the British or French Governments or by the American Group which participated in the Consortium Agreement, in which event the Department would give further study to the whole question.
For the guidance of the Embassy, there is set forth below a statement in regard to the question raised by the proposal to establish an opium monopoly in territory in which the Government of China has by law prohibited the opium traffic.
The nations party to The Hague Opium Convention of 191257 are under obligation to take measures for the gradual and effective suppression of the manufacture of, internal trade in, and use of, prepared opium, with due regard to the varying circumstances of each country concerned.
Under the terms of the Geneva Agreement, entered into in 1925 between powers having possessions in the Far East58 (but to which neither China nor the United States is a party), the government monopoly system was formally adopted by those powers as a temporary expedient to meet this obligation.
The policy adopted by the Government of the United States under the obligations imposed by The Hague Convention of 1912 has been that of complete statutory prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of prepared opium, coupled with thorough enforcement of the law.
As early as 1904, it was proposed that there be established in the Philippine Islands a three-year opium monopoly to be followed by [Page 131] prohibition, but this proposal, in so far as it related to government monopoly, was rejected and the principle of absolute interdiction of the traffic was adopted. It is generally admitted that the habit of opium smoking is injurious and that this holds true no matter where the addict resides. For that reason, the Government of the United States has felt that there is no warrant for a double standard in this matter and that it would be entirely inconsistent to permit the use of smoking opium, by a rationing system or otherwise, in the Philippine Islands while recognizing the fundamental evil of the habit by absolutely proscribing prepared opium in the United States. The result of enforcement of complete prohibition of the use of opium for purposes other than medicinal is considered to have proved satisfactory in the Philippine Islands.
Furthermore, the Government of the United States feels that if proscription of all phases of the traffic were conscientiously enforced in all other Far Eastern territories, the natural factors that now aid the smuggler would be of minor importance among the practical problems which confront the enforcement officers of jurisdictions in the Far East.
Upon invitation, this Government sent an observer to the Conference on Opium Smoking in the Far East which met at Bangkok in November, 1931.59 That Conference was called, under the Opium Agreement signed at Geneva, February 11, 1925, to discuss the situation in regard to the application of Chapter 2 of the Hague Convention of 1912 and the application of the Geneva Agreement. The basis for its discussions was the report of the League of Nations Commission of Enquiry into the Control of Opium Smoking in the Far East. The position of the American Government in that Conference rested on the fact that the Conference, although it was convened under a treaty to which the United States is not a party, was in fact a conference of certain nations which, together with the United States, are party to The Hague Convention of 1912. The American Government accepted the invitation to be represented in view of the fact that the subject of the discussion was to be the manner in which nations which had undertaken joint obligations with the United States in The Hague Convention proposed to meet the obligations thus undertaken.
The Commission of Enquiry into the Control of Opium Smoking in the Far East reported as its major conclusion that the gradual and effective suppression of opium smoking requires concerted action on similar and concurrent lines by all governments concerned. In regard to this conclusion, the American observer at the Bangkok Conference stated, under instruction from the Department, that the [Page 132] American Government “concurs in the view that the suppression of opium smoking calls for concerted action on the part of all of the governments in the Far East. It also believes that similar and concurrent action on the part of the governments concerned is desirable, but it further believes that the time has come when such action should lead more immediately toward absolute proscription. While prepared to lend all practicable aid to measures directed toward suppression of this destructive vice, the Government of the United States is not prepared to follow a line similar and concurrent with that followed by other governments so long as those other governments elect to retain the monopoly system and are not willing to attempt prohibition”. He also said: “There can be no question of my Government’s adopting a monopoly system or joining in measures to strengthen or continue the system of legalizing the traffic in smoking opium.”
It is the feeling of the American Government that the suppression of opium smoking is more nearly to be accomplished by measures designed to enforce an absolute proscription than by measures devised to protect the revenue of a monopoly. The Government of the United States has repeatedly and strongly urged frank recognition of the fact that there can be but one real method by which to suppress the evil of opium smoking in the Far East or anywhere else and that this method is that of complete statutory prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession or use of prepared opium, coupled with active enforcement of such prohibition.
The representatives of the Chinese Government in the Opium Advisory Committee and in the Committees of the League of Nations have consistently taken a similar position on the question of opium monopolies.
As to the proposal, put forward again in 1931, that the Chinese Government should undertake the establishment of an opium monopoly, the views of the American Government on the subject of monopolies for the sale of smoking opium were so well known that the Department, feeling that the question was, after all, primarily a domestic problem, and realizing the intimate connection of this question with Chinese internal politics, refrained from making any representations at that time to the Government of China.
From the reports of the American Embassy at Tokyo and of the American Consul General at Mukden, it now appears that the present regime in Manchuria contemplates the establishment in that area of a government monopoly for the sale of smoking opium, and has negotiated, with a syndicate of Japanese banks, a loan, a part of the security for which is the anticipated profit from such monopoly. It is significant, in this connection, that no information has reached [Page 133] the Department of any announcement that rationing, registration or other restrictions tending toward eventual suppression of opium smoking are in contemplation. On the contrary, the fact that the unusual step has been taken of pledging revenue from an opium monopoly as security for a loan would seem to presage an effort to exploit rather than to suppress the traffic in opium smoking.
As of interest to the Embassy, there are enclosed herewith articles, as listed below,60 from the Christian Science Monitor, the Baltimore Sun, and the Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail in which the question of the opium traffic in Manchuria is discussed and criticism adverse to Japan is put forward.
With reference to the letter which Mr. Tani61 addressed to Mr. Neville62 under date of November 29, 1932,60 it should be pointed out that one purpose of The Hague Opium Convention of 1912 is the suppression of the traffic in opium for smoking. The government monopoly system can, therefore, be represented as consistent with the obligations of that Convention only when such monopoly embodies measures for eventual suppression of the traffic and its gradual reduction. It will be noted that Article 1 of the Geneva Agreement of 1925 specifies certain measures as preventive against exploitation of the traffic.
The Department does not desire, at the present time, to make representations to either the Japanese Government or that of China on the subject of an opium monopoly in Manchuria. Should the question, however, be informally presented to any of the Embassy staff, they may informally point out that the American Government regards as most unfortunate any attempt to set up in Manchuria the legalized sale of opium for smoking.
Very truly yours,
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- See memorandum to the French Embassy, Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. iv, p. 390.↩
- Ibid., 1920, vol. i, p. 576.↩
- Signed January 23, 1912, ibid., 1912, p. 196.↩
- Signed February 11, 1925, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. li, p. 837.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. i, pp. 699 ff.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Masayuki Tani, Director, Asia Bureau, Japanese Foreign Office.↩
- Edwin L. Neville, Counselor of Embassy in Japan.↩
- Not printed.↩