740.00119 Control (Japan)/12–2745
The Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs (Vincent) to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson)
Mr. Acheson: With regard to the question of neutral missions in Tokyo having relations with the Japanese Government,14 it might not be the best course to permit such relations, but I do not think we can base the argument on the possibility that other nations such as the Soviet Union, China, and the United Kingdom might take this as a precedent for establishing Embassies for conducting direct relations with the Japanese Government. The three nations named are bound by the Declaration of the United Nations “not to make separate armistice or peace with the enemies”.15 The establishment of an Embassy by any one of the three powers would have to be preceded by a peace treaty and recognition of the Japanese Government. It is conceivable that the Soviet Union might “jump the traces” but if they did decide to do so the whole scheme of cooperation in the Far East would “go by the boards” and I feel that any attitude we take towards the present neutral nations (Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal) having relations with the Japanese Government would have little or no bearing on Soviet action.
The question presented here is a fundamental one for which we have not yet produced an answer. Prior to the Potsdam Proclamation it [Page 735] was generally thought that there would be no Japanese Government and that the Allied military administration for control of Japan would in effect be the government of Japan. Potsdam, however, altered this situation. There is a Japanese Government “subject” to General MacArthur. It has now diplomatic representatives abroad in Sweden, Switzerland, and Portugal which have relations with the Governments to which they are accredited. The unanswered question is whether the Japanese Government is to be considered purely as an “administrative instrument” for General MacArthur or whether it is to be considered a government, while not sovereign, yet capable of operating in much the same manner as the government of a protected country or the government of a country under military occupation. If it is purely an “administrative instrument” then the neutral missions should, it seems to me, have relations only with MacArthur’s headquarters. If it is a government then it would seem to me that the neutral missions should be permitted to have relations with it. General MacArthur is in a position to exercise complete control over the Japanese Government and can therefore supervise, direct, modify, or prevent negotiations by the Japanese Foreign Office with neutral missions.
Quite aside from the merits of the case, I understand from War Department people that General MacArthur would prefer not to be faced with the necessity of setting up a “Foreign Office” in his headquarters to conduct relations with the neutral missions.
Finally, it seems to me, if we do not wish neutral nations to continue relations with the Japanese Government, we should, on a government-to-government level, request the nations concerned to break off diplomatic relations with Japan on the ground that the Japanese Government is not sovereign and is not capable of conducting foreign relations.
- See memorandum of September 27, p. 723.↩
- Signed January 1, 1942; Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. i, p. 25.↩