Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Far East, Volume VIII

894.011/6–2146: Telegram

The Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State

secret

Tokyo, June 21, 1946.
[Received June 23—5 p.m.]

281. 1. I have received letter dated May 27 from Nelson Johnson on attitude of Far Eastern Commission toward draft constitution which has disturbed us here very much and I am sending you by mail copy my reply June 19²⁶ which I venture to hope may receive your personal attention.

2. In view of what is to us startling and incomprehensible attitude based on misconceptions and lack of knowledge of situation I wish to lay before you following comment and pertinent statements of fact:

(a) Neither General MacArthur nor anyone in Headquarters has had slightest intention or inclination to “jam” constitution through this or any Diet. There has been no intervention or intention to intervene in question of how or when draft is to be considered by present or any future Diet.

(b) While General MacArthur has expressed his approval of the draft, there has been no pressure from this headquarters in favor of it and his consistent attitude has been, and is known to the Japanese to be, that question of evolving democratic constitution is entirely up to them within the purview of the applicable language of the Potsdam Declaration.

(c) Present Diet is as representative of the people as any Diet can be. It is result of free elections in which vast majority of electorate, including women, participated. Question of constitution was last issue before the electorate which went to the polls primarily to elect representatives to consider constitutional revision.

(d) For 8 months question of constitution has been under active discussion by Jap officials, educators, newspapers, writers, radio commentators, and political leaders who have brought before the vast majority of the people through all possible media every aspect of the problem. Similarly there have been widely disseminated in the vernacular press views expressed by Far Eastern Commission, editorial writers, official and semi-official spokesmen and commentators, etc., in other countries. It is my opinion that there are few instances in history in which a proposed fundamental charter of national life has received such widespread public discussion and consideration. By its own terms, draft if approved cannot go into effect for six months from date of promulgation. New amendment procedures are provided for in the draft.

(e) The draft is a Japanese document. It does not seem to me at all curious that the Jap drafting committee should draw heavily in language and provisions upon terms and underlying tenets of US Constitution. Other countries have done so to advantage in the past.

(f) As regards question of legal continuity, there is no legal procedure for adoption of the existing constitutional framework but by placing draft by imperial order before the Diet where it must receive stipulated majority approval. To hold special constituent assembly, referendum, et cetera would violate FEC directive and would in addition be illegal here.

3. I hope that the American delegates can do some missionary work among FEC members and dissipate the misconceptions and erroneous impressions which seem to be abroad in the matter. Terms of the Potsdam Declaration and the other directives have all been, and are being, scrupulously followed by SCAP. We are well aware here that there are those among Allied representatives who do not wish to see a democratic constitution in effect in Japan. (The attitude of Japanese Communist Party toward the constitution is prima facie evidence of that fact.) My experience with the Council and other considerations have been bringing me to view that there are those among our Allies, or among represenetatives of some of our Allies, who do not wish to see the American occupation here succeed. It has been a fundamental precept of American policy implementation to allow and encourage the Jap to effect their own reforms. General MacArthur adopted this sound, wise and far-sighted policy at the outset, and history is bearing him out that this is only policy by which the Jap can be guided into willing pursuit of the paths which will lead to achievement of our objectives. In my opinion there would be no quicker way to destroy value of or to undermine Jap people’s respect for any new constitution, than to have them feel that it was dictated by Far Eastern Commission or by any group of foreign representatives of foreign powers.

The setting up of a framework for a democratic government is the most vital political question before the Jap people and is the most important political problem still confronting American and Allied interests in this country and its future. Whatever draft may be evolved and receive approval in this or subsequent Diet, it would, in my considered opinion, be a calamity from point of view of our interests to interfere with or obstruct its progress toward law so long as it conforms to the Potsdam Declaration and the other US and FEC policy directives.

In their bewildered state of mind at time of surrender the Jap narrowly avoided political chaos. Under the occupation they have been gradually groping their way forward. Significant milestones on their path were their undertaking of constitutional reform and election of a new Diet. The Japanese now consider themselves moving ahead more and more under their own power toward constructive accomplishment and to retard or reverse this movement would be highly dangerous to our objectives. Thus, to us here on the ground, the importance of this question cannot be overemphasized.

Atcheson

26. Neither printed; they are summarized in this telegram.