→
65
of a right on their part to dictate routes to our shipping,
but would be justified on purely navigational grounds by
reference to the fact of the presence of Japanese naval vessels
in a particular area.
The signal 1011/23 from the Commander-in-Chief does not
indicate that there are, in his opinion, any navigational
grounds which would justify our advising British ships to avoid
the area of naval operations; and if this is, in fact, the
view of the British naval authorities, we think the Japanese
should be told that we cannot agree to issue the warning
suggested by them; that British shipping must remain free to
follow the courses used in the past; and that any interference
by the Japanese with British vessels, except what has already
been agreed to for the purpose of establishing identity, will
be regarded as unwarranted.
If, on the other hand, the British naval authorities
advised that on navigational grounds the suggested warning to
British shipping should be issued, it would be necessary to
explain to the Japanese that the warning would not be binding,
and that any British ships which did not act on it would not
thereby make themselves liable to any interference by the
Japanese authorities (except what has already been agreed to
for the purpose of establishing identity); and the attention
of the Japanese might also have to be called to the case of
vessels proceeding to Canton. Moreover, it would be necessary
to arrange for frequent review of the situation by the naval
authorities so that, if the conditions altered in such a manner
as to make the warning no longer applicable, a further notice
to British shipping could be issued.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Seal.
Yours sincerely,
Signed W. Carter.