The Acting Secretary of State to the New Zealand Chargé (Reid)

Sir: I refer to the Minister’s note of December 18, 1945,71 in which he presented the views of the Government of New Zealand with respect to the disposition of stockpiles of rubber, tin, and antimony found in Japan.

The United States Government welcomes the concurrence of your Government in the principle that commodity stocks in Japan should be subject to strict conservation measures, and the further principle that the proceeds of such stocks should be used to pay for imports of essential commodities. It is further noted that your Government has sufficient stocks of tin and antimony and would concur in the disposition of these materials proposed by the United States.

In view of the fact that, at the next meeting of the Trade Subcommittee of the Far Eastern Commission, the United States Government will present its proposal for the establishment of an Inter-Allied [Page 132] Supply Committee whose function would be to advise on matters relating to Japanese export and import problems, it is respectfully suggested that some of the recommendations and questions raised in the Minister’s note concerning general procedure might more expeditiously be discussed, in consultation with the other interested Governments, through the medium of the proposed Committee.

The proposed Inter-Allied Supply Committee will probably recommend in many instances that commodities in short world supply be exported from Japan, in accordance with the recommendations of the established allocating authorities. The United States Government believes, therefore, that the requirement of New Zealand for raw rubber should be brought to the attention of the committee responsible for allocating world stocks of this commodity.72

Accept [etc.]

For the Acting Secretary of State:
William L. Clayton
  1. This note was in reply to the Department’s note of December 5, 1945, to Missions represented on the Far Eastern Advisory Commission. See Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. vi, footnote 44, p. 877.
  2. Replies were made by the Department also to the Canadian Ambassador on February 7, 1946, the Agent General for India on February 12, 1946, and the Netherlands Ambassador on February 20, 1946, along somewhat similar lines; none printed.