740.00114A Pacific War/493
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State (Long)66
I recognize the logic and agree with the thought that nothing should be done to interfere with the attitude of the Japanese Government if it manifests itself to be disposed to abide by its obligations.
Concurrently with the arrival of this file on my desk there has also arrived no. 3389, June 4, from Bern, which is the general reply of the Japanese Government to our earlier protest about the treatment of American prisoners of war and civilian internees.
In the light of this new telegram I suggest that the matter be not closed for the moment but that the situation be reviewed.
The Japanese note seems to be conciliatory and to indicate a desire to accord what they consider to be proper treatment under the Geneva Convention. In it they recognize that they declared to apply the provisions of that Convention to civilian internees and they separately reaffirm that commitment to apply the Convention to prisoners of war. However, they do not satisfactorily—to my mind—cover the point which I have attempted to raise, which is that they do not accord their international obligations the authority to which they are entitled. Instead of so doing they give a prior authority to local laws, and in one instance, to a local law enacted quite recently. This subordination of international obligations to the provisions of local laws, particularly when enacted for the purpose, is objectionable and in violation of international law and specifically of the provisions of the Convention.
The Japanese contend that the treatment of our prisoners about which we complained was done in the hurly-burly of a military campaign or in mopping up operations thereafter. They tacitly admit [Page 993] practices which in themselves constitute a departure from their obligations. And it is on this point that I feel that we should, in due course, make plain our position to the Government, not only for our own account but for the sake of international law and for the observance of international obligations.
However, I do not insist that it be done if the wisdom of the Political Advisors of the Department runs to the contrary. However, this new telegram does open up the subject and necessarily requires a fresh consideration of the subject matter of the “deceased” telegram.67 The question now arises as to whether we should say anything at this time or postpone consideration until some future time.
My only insistence is that in due course whenever the circumstances would seem to render it advisable, we keep the record straight that the United States Government exerts its influence to maintain the principle that international obligations once assumed supersede local laws; and conversely, that local laws, no matter when enacted, cannot supersede international obligations.68