740.00119 Control (Japan)/4–2646: Telegram
The Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 27—6:33 p.m.]
192. 1. Associated Press reports Far Eastern Commission has laid down policy that the United States should send only enough food to Japan to safeguard Allied occupation forces. Question of food policy is on the agenda for the third meeting of the Allied Council scheduled [Page 217] for April 30. In the absence of a directive and in so far as the Council is concerned, I have been prepared to meet this question in Council by presenting views as follows:
“There is strong question in my mind as to how far the Council may properly proceed in a substantive discussion of the amount of food which the United States sends to the occupation forces for Jap consumption for the purpose of safeguarding the occupation forces and the occupation in Japan. If the occupation forces were not taking steps, such as provision of necessary food supplies, to preclude in so far as possible starvation, hunger and unrest which would adversely affect the occupation from military as well as political point of view, it would be logical for members of the Council to offer advice in the matter. The reverse however is true. The United States is sending this food to the occupation forces as actually to USAFPAC rather than to SCAP—for the purposes mentioned. The food is being provided by the United States alone, not through an international organization concerned with the distribution of contributions by various countries. The burden falls upon the United States and there is no question but that it is far better for the United States to send food than to have to send large numbers of additional troops. It seems to me therefore that in the absence of governing policy directive stipulating that the Jap people are to be limited in their per capita food consumption, the question of how much food United States sends to safeguard the occupation forces and the occupation is not one which properly comes before the Council. Certainly the question whether the United States might send some of this food to other countries is entirely outside the Council’s purview.”
2. The question of food policy was placed on the agenda at the request of the British Commonwealth member (an Australian). We understand that question was raised in the Far Eastern Commission by the New Zealand representative. The wording of the item on our agenda is: “An inquiry about Allied food policy in Japan in relation to the present world shortage of food stuffs and the standards of food consumption prevailing in other defeated countries.” The purpose of the inquiry here I believe is clearly to raise the question whether food for Japan provided by the United States should not be allocated to some other country. I submit my opinion that the question of the distribution of food provided by the United States alone outside the scope of any international agreement is not subject to decision or determination by any other than United States Govt. Certainly determination of the question of how much food should be sent to Japan by the United States to safeguard the Allied occupation forces is one solely for determination by the United States. I submit further that, over and above the paramount question for preventing unrest and most serious military as well as political difficulties, we are under moral obligation to do what we can to prevent hunger and starvation in this country. I am mindful of remarks made some time ago by a SCAP [Page 218] spokesman pointing out that the islands of Japan are in a sense analogous to a huge concentration camp. There is no barbed wire fence around these islands but we are in a military occupation here and, at this stage, our efforts to revive manufacture of exports to exchange for imports of food are necessarily restricted to channels which the United States has set up. Thus the Japs are not yet free to trade abroad (before the war they had to import from 15 to 20 percent of their foodstuffs) or indeed to utilize all of their own resources. While the progress and purposes of the occupation will eventually place the responsibility solely upon the Japs to provide for themselves, that time has not come and our obligation has not ended. We are indeed trying Jap war criminals for failure to provide sufficient food to American and other allied internees and prisoners of war.
3. If actions of the United States Govt pertaining to security of its forces are to be subject to review at the direction of an allied body acting on the basis of political considerations, the opportunities for embarrassment and hindrance to our executive administration of the occupation might become so increased as to endanger seriously our position here.
4. Adverse propaganda by interested foreign representatives and others may easily obscure and distort realities of the situation and adversely affect our position in the eyes of the American public. There is no question here whether we should be harsh or should be soft on the Japs. Our occupation authorities are faced with a serious and concrete military problem, not to mention important political considerations having definite bearing upon our long range objectives. As a means of clarifying position here and of offsetting propaganda adverse to our policy and position, it is suggested Dept furnish the press with pertinent facts and considerations inherent in the situation and which support our position.
Please see radios exchange between General MacArthur and War on subject of food needs in connection with occupation. References are: from War Dept to SCAP W 80091, Warx 89675, War 96126, War 98710, War 97085; from SCAP to War Dept CA 56217, CA 56674 [6 Jan 46], CA 56727 [8 Jan 46], CA 57156 [25 Jan 46], C 58100 [21 Feb 46], CA [C] 58445 [4 Mar 46], C 59377 [31 Mar 46], C 59880 [13 Apr 46].
This telegram sent with concurrence and approval of General MacArthur.