740.00119 Control (Japan)/12–1745: Telegram
The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 26—10:11 a.m.]
212. We have received SWNCC 192/3, November 28,51 Exercise of Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction Over United Nations Nationals, and find a number of matters which might merit clarification.
- 1.
- We assume that Formosans are now to be considered as Chinese and therefore as United Nations nationals.
- 2.
- The status of Koreans as regards the purposes of Army directive is not mentioned. We feel that for political reasons they should be accorded the same general treatment as is accorded United Nations nationals under appropriate police controls as suggested below. As the Department is aware, a considerable portion of the Korean population in Japan is composed of rough and sometimes truculent elements, including coolies and coal miners, who require police control for the sake of the maintenance of ordinary civil order.
- 3.
- No mention is made of the question of Japanese police
jurisdiction over neutral foreigners and we wonder whether
it is intended that neutrals are to be discriminated against
in this respect as compared to United Nations nationals. In
addition to the matter of discrimination (which we regard as
inadvisable), differences in treatment would require:
- (a)
- The constant carrying by individual foreigners of identification cards or passports and
- (b)
- Instruction of each individual Japanese policeman as to the names of the more than 50 United Nations as well as the names of [Page 886] neutral nations and nations of other categories. This would seem to be impracticable.
- 4.
- The limitation is [in?] appendix B, paragraph 21, the authority of Japanese police to take any United Nations national into custody, raises a number of practical questions in regard to what we consider useful and necessary Japanese police functions for the maintenance of ordinary civil order. A concrete problem arose recently in Tokyo when a Formosan group forcibly, and without Japanese police interference, took over offices previously occupied by a Japanese Governmental office dealing with Formosan affairs.
It will be recalled that under extraterritoriality in China, Chinese police were authorized to take American citizens into temporary custody under appropriate circumstances for immediate delivery to the nearest American Consul and were on occasion called upon by our consuls to effect the arrest of Americans. When the foreign commercial population increases in Japan there will undoubtedly occur instances in which United Nations nationals are involved in traffic accidents, in brawls, especially in seaports where merchant vessels dock, and possibly in more serious crimes. To prohibit Japanese police from appropriately restraining or temporarily detaining United Nations nationals so involved would provide disorderly foreigners a license which would undoubtedly encourage the commission of offenses, as danger of apprehension and punishment would be at a minimum, and would place upon our military police an unwarranted responsibility which could only be discharged by the maintenance of a very large military police force in every port or area where foreigners are residents or visitors. It seems to me that as a practical matter there are only two alternatives: Either the Japanese police must be given the responsibility (properly supervised) for the maintenance of ordinary civil order, or American military police must be organized to take over that task. We believe that both as a matter of policy and as a matter of practicability it is preferable to utilize the Japanese police.
- Not printed.↩