326 J.-A. PEMBERTON
of European Powers in Southeast Asia.’^305 Instead, Foreign Minister
Arita issued two formal statements in which he made it apparent that
it was Japan’s intention to succeed the Netherlands in the Dutch East
Indies, a colony in which Japan declared it had a vital interest, and that
Japan ‘claimed the right as the self-appointed guardian of “peace and sta-
bility” in the Eastern Pacific, to dictate the political and economic future
of the countries of Southeast Asia.’^306
The American State Department responded sharply, insisting on the
United States’ concern for the status of the Indies and pointing out that
the American government did not accept that Japan had a right to deter-
mine the destiny of the countries of East Asia. The American rejoinder
aroused immense anger in Japan, especially among extreme nationalist
groups who advocated a policy of aggression. However, the Yonai gov-
ernment, ‘fearing American retaliation, continued to move cautiously,’
preferring to ‘secure Japanese control of the resources of the Indies by
a process of intensive economic penetration backed by threats of mili-
tary force’ which it considered ‘would be sufficient to force the Dutch
authorities to adopt economic and commercial policies suited to Japan’s
needs.’^307
The Japanese government’s next move was to attempt to force the
closure of the Indochina route in order to stop supplies arriving in China
from French Indochina. Against the background of a panic-stricken
French government and the presence of Japanese forces and units of
Japan’s naval fleet near to the French holding, Japan succeeded in mak-
ing this move. The government then turned its attention to eliminat-
ing British assistance to China. The landing of Japanese troops along
the Pearl River west of Hong Kong saw the British government agree
to close the Burma and Hong Kong routes, through which war supplies
entered China, for a period of three months dating from July 18.^308
Mitchell and Holland pointed out that this decision was
strongly condemned by...some members of the House of Commons
where it was denounced as a betrayal of China and a shameful new
‘Munich.’ British government leaders, however, insisted that under the(^305) Ibid.
(^306) Ibid.
(^307) Ibid., 2, 5.
(^308) Ibid., 3.