740.00119 Control(Japan)/10–2945: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman)

2243. Reftel 3685, October 29, 6 p.m. I appreciate receiving and have given careful consideration to the questions raised in your telegram.

1.
With reference to your paragraph 1, we have no strong feelings with regard to use of the word “commission” to describe the allied military body in Tokyo but suggest that you let Stalin or Molotov raise this question for reference back to Washington.
2.
With reference to your paragraph 2, we have in the Department had this problem in mind but as you will readily appreciate, any decision on the matter involves other Departments of the Government and Presidential approval. We would prefer to hear what the [Page 808] Soviet Government has to say further on this subject before entering upon the necessary discussions here.
3.
The demarkation between the responsibilities of the military body and the Far Eastern Commission, requested in your paragraph 3, is as follows: the Far Eastern Commission functions as a policy formulating body on non-military matters. On the basis of policy agreed upon by the Commission, the U.S. Government prepares and sends to General MacArthur directives which are in accord with the policies of the Commission. General MacArthur as Supreme Allied Commander is the implementing or executing authority. The proposed Allied Military Council consults and advises the Supreme Commander in regard to the implementation of the terms of surrender and occupation of Japan and of directives supplementary thereto including military as well as non-military directives. Thus, the Commission functions entirely in the field of policy formulation and the Council functions as an agency which consults with and advises the Supreme Commander in implementing directives.
4.
With regard to the questions raised in your paragraph 4 on voting procedure in the Commission, it will be recalled that our revision of the terms has been prompted by British suggestions for a revision. Whereas we would be prepared to consider Soviet suggestions with regard to any change in the voting procedure, and are not ourselves unfavorably inclined to the proposed procedure whereby there would be a majority rule providing chairman voted with majority, this is a matter which would have to be discussed with the British and Chinese who have received the revised Terms of Reference. On this matter, therefore, we suggest that you receive and forward any suggestions made by the Russians for our consideration. The point you raised with regard to China’s voting can, we believe, be readily solved.
5.
With regard to the question of India raised in your paragraph 5, China has agreed to the inclusion of India and the Soviet Government not having expressed its disapproval, India has been invited to participate in the Commission and presumably will have a representative at the Commission meeting tomorrow.
Byrnes