740.00119 FEAC/1–446: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
urgent, niact
[Received 9:18 p.m.]
63. Following is a translation of the French reply to our invitation relating to the Far Eastern Commission (my 45, January 46).
“By your note No. 1030 dated December 29, [19]45, your Excellency was good enough to communicate to me the text of the provisions relating to the creation of a Far Eastern Commission, drawn up at [Page 86] the recent Tripartite Conference of Moscow, and, in the name of the Governments of the United States, of the USSR, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and of China, to invite the French Government to participate in the Far Eastern Commission on the basis of these provisions.
I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the Republic has decided to accept, under the proposed conditions, the invitation which has been addressed to it to [be] represented in the new Far Eastern Commission.
This decision is based essentially on the interpretation which is given of the provisions contained in Section A, Part II, of the text, relative to the functions of the Far Eastern Commission. According to this text:
‘The functions of the Commission shall be:
- 1.
- To formulate the policies, principles and standards in conformity with which the fulfillment by Japan of its obligations under the terms of surrender may be accomplished;
- 2.
- To review on the request of any member any directive issued to the Supreme Commander involving policy decisions within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
- 3.
- To consider such other matters as may be assigned to it by agreement among the participating governments reached in accordance with the voting procedure provided for in article V 2 hereunder.’
It appears that the ‘other matters’ referred to in paragraph 3 above necessarily come within the scope of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, relative to the control of Japan, which precede paragraph 3, and that, consequently, these ‘other matters’ cannot be of such a nature as to bring French interests directly into question. It is for this reason that the French Government believes it can accept, for its representative on the Commission, a status different from that of the United States, of the USSR, of the United Kingdom and of China, powers which are participating directly in the execution of the terms of Japan’s capitulation.
In the event, however, that the provisions of paragraph 3 in question should be invoked, in order to extend the jurisdiction of the Commission to any matter which might bring directly into question French interest in the Far East, the French Government, invoking its dual capacity as a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations Organization and as a power in the Pacific, would consider itself justified in claiming, in so far as the voting procedure provided for in article V, paragraph 2, is concerned, a status identical with that enjoyed by the other powers in the Pacific which are permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations Organization.
I would be grateful if Your Excellency would be good enough to ensure that this reply is communicated to the Governments of the United States, of the USSR, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and of China.
I beg you to accept, Mr. Ambassador, the assurances of my very high consideration.” (Signed F. Gay)
As I have pointed out before when the French mention “other matters referred to in paragraph 3” they have Indochina in mind.7
- Not printed; for invitation, see telegram 131, December 28, 1945, to Canberra, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. vi, p. 894.↩
- In telegram 80, January 7, 1946, 8 p.m., to Paris, the Department authorized the Ambassador to reply to the French note and to say that the American Government understood “other matters” to apply to matters relating to control of Japan and that matters affecting southeast Asia, including Indochina, which were not related to the control of Japan, would not be introduced into the Commission’s deliberations. (740.00119 FEAC/1–446).↩