Some days ago General MacArthur asked me to draw up a statement
in regard to the question of the revision of the Constitution
partially for the purpose of clearing the air in the matter but
primarily with a view to meeting recent Soviet and British
criticism of him. He asked me to consider whether such statement
should be issued by me or by him, and the implication was that
he would wish me to issue it because it would thereby have a
less formal character and would not be in the nature of a
directive to the Japanese Government. We drew up such a
statement, and I enclose a copy herewith. Subsequently, the
General turned his attention to the question of answering the
Herald Tribune’s criticism of him.
(Editorial dated October 31 in regard to Konoye’s activities in
regard to the Constitution and General MacArthur’s connection
therewith.)
I was heartily in favor of issuing some statement along the line
of that enclosed in order that the Japanese officials concerned,
the Japanese press and the Japanese public might gain some clear
idea of what is wrong with the present Constitution from the
democratic point of view. It is obvious to us now that General
MacArthur, or his Chief of Staff and other members of the Bataan
Club who act as his Privy Council or genro—wish if possible to keep the State Department
out of this matter. Meanwhile, we learned from Japanese sources
privately that Konoye’s committee expects to have a complete
draft prepared before the end of this month to submit to the
Government, and it seems to me that if we are to get our ideas
abroad before a draft is published with all the trimmings of
imperial sanction, etc., some action toward achieving our
purpose should be taken at once. For, it goes without saying,
any attempt to cause correction of a draft once prepared with
imperial sanction will meet with difficulties and will cause
unfortunate
[Page 838]
political
repercussions which can not help but militate against our long
term objectives.
I accordingly suggest that a statement along the lines of the
enclosed be released to the press by the Department. I am quite
willing to take the responsibility of having it released as a
report to the Secretary from me; in any case if the language is
retained it would be recognized by Headquarters. Release will,
of course, cause some irritation in Headquarters as does every
pronouncement on policy matters by officers of the Department,
but such irritation, I believe, is more than offset by the
salutary effects such pronouncements have in reminding
Headquarters and others that policy is made at home and that,
after all, the making of foreign policy is centered in the
Department of State. Your famous statement of September 19 or
2015 did a
lot of good here and continues to do good, and while it did not
enhance our personal welcome, I believe that, looking back,
there is no question but that it strengthened our position and
made it possible for us to achieve a certain independence from
the chain of command without which our job here would be almost
completely empty.
I would not bother you with this if I did not regard it as an
extremely important matter.
[Enclosure]
Draft Statement to the Press
There has recently been indication in both the foreign and
Japanese press of some confusion as to the American attitude
toward the revision of the Japanese Constitution—a question
which is now squarely before the Government and people of
Japan.
I would say that the key is to be found in Paragraph 10 of
the Potsdam Declaration which provides that:
“The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles
to the revival and strengthening of democratic
tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of
speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as
respect for the fundamental human rights shall be
established.”
The American attitude is also manifest in one of the
well-known ultimate objectives of United States policy in
regard to Japan:
To bring about the eventual establishment of a
peaceful and responsible Government which will
respect the rights of other states and will support
the objectives of the United States as reflected in
the ideals and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations. The United States desires that this
government should conform to principles
[Page 839]
of
democratic self-government, but it is not the
responsibility of the Allied Powers to impose upon
Japan any form of Government not supported by the
freely expressed will of the people.
This leaves no room for uncertainty as to the purposes of the
Supreme Commander and the policies of the United States—they
are one and the same. Keference to “principles of democratic
self-government” requires no elaboration. Certainly to all
Americans, and just as assuredly to many other peoples in
many parts of the world, its meaning is as unclouded as the
simple words of Abraham Lincoln by which Americans
live—“Government of the people, by the people and for the
people.”
Secretary Byrnes said in his V–J Day statement,16 “Attitudes of mind
cannot be changed at the points of bayonets or merely by the
issuance of edicts.”
We do not seek to impose at bayonet point any particular
attitude of mind upon the Japanese or upon any people; we do
not seek to impose upon the Japanese a constitution written
in the American language to conform to American governmental
framework. What we hope and expect is that the Japanese
Government and people, who are showing desire to follow a
democratic way of life, will press forward in their own best
interests to a comprehensive democratic reform of the
organic law of government. Before the occupation can be
terminated, the Allied Powers are to decide whether our
objectives have been attained; it is for us to make clear to
the Japanese people now our convictions as to the basic
faults of the existing order.
It is fundamental that no democratic government can exist
except upon a framework of law making that government
responsible to an electorate expressive of the free will of
the whole nation and providing that the executive be
responsible to, and derive from, the electorate or a
legislative body fully representing the electorate.
It is not democratic that the House of Representatives—the
only organ of the national Government which now purports to
represent a portion of the people—functions in chains that
are as heavy as they are short and is subject to dissolution
and re-election at the dictate of higher authority; that the
Cabinet is not responsible to the people’s representatives
and there is no rule under which the Cabinet must have their
confidence, or fall; that the elected members of the Diet,
although they purport to represent the people whose taxes
support Government and its instrumentalities, do not have
full control of financial and budgetary matters.
It is not democratic that all fundamental human rights should
be so emasculated as to leave the people at the sorry mercy
of centralized
[Page 840]
and
arbitrary police interference in their daily living, or that
the minds of their children should be shaped into cast-iron
moulds by arbitrary centralized control of education; that
non-Japanese should be excluded from even these limited
restricted “rights;” that the people should be without
judicial recourse for the protection of their rights against
the Government; that there is no provision for impeachment
or recall of high officials.
It is not democratic that a House of Peers, representing but
a small and highly privileged class, should be able to
thwart the wishes of the people as expressed through elected
representatives; that a body such as the Privy Council,
responsible neither to Diet nor people, should have power to
dictate policy and over-ride the executive branch of the
people’s government.
It is not democratic that the military, through lack of
constitutional definition of their powers, should be free of
control by the people’s representatives.
It is not democratic that freedom of thought and speech and
religion should be strangled by enforced adherence to the
idea that any human being is divine or smothered by
observance of Shinto or other particular religions or
pseudo-religious rites.
There cannot develop in Japan any government worthy of being
called democratic unless the Cabinet is chosen with the
advice and consent of, and is made responsible to, a
legislative body fully representative of all Japanese men
and women; unless legislative measures may be passed without
governing veto by higher authority; unless the elected
legislature may initiate constitutional amendments, approve
or disapprove those initiated by higher authority, and
require the Chief of State (if he retains this privilege) to
introduce amendments put forward by the Cabinet with the
approval of the legislative body; unless the Chief of State
acts in important matters on the advice of a Cabinet
responsible to such legislative body within the framework of
law which represents the free will of the people.
In the Western world we have struggled forward a long way
into the era of the common man.
The dawn of this era is spreading through the East.
We want its light to shine also on the people of the islands
of Japan.
But the Japanese themselves must seek and find the light.
The great majority of the Japanese people—so long cruelly
suppressed, so long inhumanly wrought into unthinking and
submissive tools by the military—are still cowed and
inarticulate.
It is the responsibility of the Japanese authorities to
foster the rapid development among all Japanese of the
spirit of democracy. And, with the aid of the people who
strive to think, and in accord with the people’s will and
their best interests, it must re-form the
[Page 841]
governmental structure and
cure the deformed spirit of the State which the military
slave-masters in the unhappy past so successfully perverted
to the mad concept of Japanese world conquest.
It is the responsibility of the Japanese Government to prove
to the world that Japan will quickly heed the demands of our
unsought and untold sacrifices and will emerge from the
ruinous past to become both capable and deserving of
membership in the new Commonwealth of Nations.
In conclusion, I again refer to the Secretary’s statement:
“…Eventually we expect to see emerge in Japan a
government, broadly based on all elements in the
population, which will be peacefully inclined and
which will respect the rights of other nations. We
and our Allies shall be the judges as to whether the
government which does emerge will or will not
contribute to the peace and security of the world.
We shall judge that government
by its deeds, not by its words.”
