HE following has been circulated by the Japanese Consul-General in Shanghai as a statement of Japan's case in the present Sino-Japanese hostilities in the Shanghai area.
ME Sue-masa Okamoto presents the document, dated September 22, 1937, in his capacity as Consul-General and Japanese Civil Delegate of the Joint Commission established by the Peace Agreement of 1932.
In view of the persistent, insidious and dishonest attempts of certain publications and spokesmen to represent Japan as the culprit and aggressor in tHe present hostilities in and around Shanghai, it is deemed advisable, in the interests of justice and truth, to make public an authoritative and authentic account of the events leading up to this outbreak, with a brief but necessary excursion into occurrences at the Peace Conference which ended the Sino-Japanese conflict of 1932 in this locality, For this purpose official records have been made available and their use is justified on the ground that the Chinese Mayor currently communicated garbled and highly coloured information to the Press concerning the meetings to which these records refer. It is very much to be deplored that the publications alluded to include some of the foreign journals of supposed repwe.
A few observations herein on other matters germane to the principal issue may not be out of place.
Düring the peace parleys in 1932, the Japanese delegates laboured hard for the creation of a demilitarized zone to completely encircle Shanghai, the design being. of course, to remove the danger, once and for all, of hostilities occurring again in this great metropolitan area and shipping port which would bring disaster, misery and loss to foreigners and Chinese alike, These delegates only abandoned their efforts in this direction at the instigation of the representatives of the Participating Friendly Powers, after receiving assurances from the various representatives, including the Chinese, gathered at the Conference, that a Round Table Conference ta discuss the future status of Shanghai "would be convened shortly after the liquidation of the conflict. These assurances, in deference to Chinese susceptibilities, were embodied in the Peace Agreement of May 5, 1932, under the euphemistic term "pending later arrangements" (vide, Art ID) Accordingly Japan contented herself with provisions in the said agreement binding the Chinese side (pending later arrangements) to remain in the positions to which their troops had retreated and the Japanese side to withdraw to the regions occupied by their armed forces prior to the outbreak of hostilities, thus creating the neutral zone along the northern and eastern boundaries of the International Settlement, in the full expectation that the promised Round Table Conference would determine measures for safeguarding Shanghai against any fighting in and around its entire borders in #he future, However, despite Japan's insistent efforts, the Chinese side. encouraged by the loisser faire attitude of the Participating Friendly Powers, have successfully resisted during the intervening years the Japanese demand for the convocation of the Round Table Conference. Thus the Japanese purpose of removing Shanghai from the area of any future hostilities has been set at nought, Troop Passage During discussions at meetings of the Joint Commission, which was set up under the terms of the 1932 Peace Agreement, it was agreed that there should not be any passage of Chinese troops through the mentioned neutral zone, unless with the permission of the Japanese side who would, in their discretion, allow Chinese troops in transit to other points, to pass through by train provided notification thereof was given. It is thus clear that the neutral zone was to be considered a demilitarized area. Moreover, it is provided in Art I of the 1932 Agreement that the "forces of the two sides will so far as lie in their control cease around Shanghai all and every form of hostile ect". It cannot be gain said that the system of elaborate defence works. which the revelations of the present hostilities have now proved to exist in the neutral zone, are not "hostile acts" within the meaning of Art. I of the said agreement, or that the construction of these works does not violate. the essentials of a demilitarized area, Yet these defence works by their nature must have taken a long time to construct and thus construction must have commenced Jong before the present "hostilities eventuated. The Japanese side had information regarding this 4 construction as far back as Novem-her 1936, and the matter was taken up by them with the local Chinese authorities who, however, denied that any "war preparations" were being made in that area. Neverthe-Jess evidence of such war preparations grew stronger as time went on, leading ultimately to a Japanese demand for an investigation by the Joint Commission. At a meeting of the Commission on June 23 last, the Japanese delegation communicated their reports regarding the construction of Chinese military works in the neutral area, particularly at Woosung, and asked for an inspection by the neutral members of the Commission to determine whether or not the reports were true. Moreover the Japanese delegation reported that ihey had information the Peace Preservation Corps in the demilitarized area had been very largely increased (estimated number 4 8,500) over the 2,000 which the present Chinese Mayor had assured the Japanese side in 1932 would be their number.
That assurance also embraced an undertaking that the Peace Preservation Corps referred to would be equipped with light arms such as rifles and revolvers, whereas the Japanese side had information that the Corps had since possessed heavy armament, including. tanks, and were really indistinguishable from regular Chinese army units. The Chinese delegates at the meeting relied on the absence of an express provision in the 1932 agreement prohibiting the construction of military works in the neutral area and for an inspection by the neutral members as suggested and succeeded thus in evading the issue. However, they were re-guested by the neutral members to make a voluntary declaration on the composition and number of the Peace Preservation Corps and on the question of any fortifications within the so-called prohibited zone, thus indicating, by inference, that the neutral members held it was the intention. of the Participating Friendly Powers that such matters were to he within the competence of the Joint Commission. The Chinese Civit Delegate (the Mayor) replied that "nothing so far undertaken by the Chinese authorities (in the area concerned) held behind it any hostile intention or warlike preparation." "He (the Chinese Civil Delegate) denied that any warlike preparations had been made by the Chinese authorities as alleged by the Japanese Civil Delegate". These quotations are from the official minutes of the meeting which were approved by the Chinese delegation and are interesting in the light of subsequent revelation. At the meeting referred to the Japanese Civil Delegate re" peatedly emphasized the grave consequences which would arise if his allegations about the state of affairs it the prohibited area proved to he correct,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.