740.00119 PW/4–1746: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Harriman)
4179. Proposals contained in Deptel 1868 to London, rptd to Moscow as 349, to Chungking as 367, Feb 28, were preliminary and informal, directed to Jap external assets as only a portion of overall task of inter-Allied reparations body.
For your info FEC now has under consideration a US proposal for establishment of a Reparations Committee by FEC with authority to determine categories and amounts of Jap internal and external assets available for reparations (as distinguished from restitution and war booty) and to allocate shares among claimant countries on basis of damage and cost incurred in war. Pending FEC discussions, Dept believes it unnecessary to consider now questions raised by Brit Treas (Lond’s 4264 Apr 17, not rptd elsewhere) on general subject except re Brit comment on Point 3, on which point validity their view fully recognized; nor does Dept now desire comment further on Soviet reply (Moscow’s 1306 Apr 23 to Dept, rptd Paris 103, Chungking 59) except insofar as pgh (4) Moscow’s tel is relevant to following: Dept now proposes re Jap external assets no distinction among countries which were invaded, occupied or actively engaged in the war or in state of belligerency, and considers all such conditions as included in general term “at war with Japan”.
For transmission, therefore, to Br, Soviets and Chinese respectively present revised position of Dept should be substituted for points 1, 2 and 3 of reference Deptel: “Countries at war with Japan (i.e. including [Page 519] belligerent states) may keep Jap assets within their territories, and assets so retained shall be offset against claims by respective countries against Japan.”
Revised position results from Dept’s failure to make explicit in reference Deptel intention this govt to deal in matters concerning Jap external assets in other American Republics within framework established by resolutions at Rio, Washington and Mexico City Conferences,39 which provide that each signatory may individually or by international agreement (probably among signatories themselves) reach final decision regarding disposition of enemy property. Refer especially pgh (3) of both resolutions 18 and 19 of Mexico City Conference. Dept’s substitute position as stated above does not make provision for Colombia which only severed relations with Japan but is signatory to Mexico City resolutions, so special provision required ensure treatment Colombia similar other American Republics. Br., Soviets and Chinese should be so advised.
Since under resolutions 18 and 19 signatories thereto may individually or by agreement dispose of enemy property, claims against Jap by a signatory govt (while not specifically discussed in such resolutions) are not, in absence of further undertaking, susceptible to limitation by contemplated reparations commission.
Re German external assets, situation with respect other American Republics not yet resolved. For your info only, tendency is to suggest that other American Republics satisfy respective claims against Germany out of German assets within their respective jurisdictions, and that possibly excess, if any, should then be pooled, and deficit in any individual Republic concerned be satisfied out of pool. Thereafter, though this seems not probable, any excess would be made available to war devastated areas. Substantially similar arrangement might well be considered re Jap assets in other American Republics, but unnecessary to decide this question now.
Sent to Lond as 4179, rptd to Moscow as 936, to Nanking as 165, Paris for Reinstein40 for info only as 2453.
- For resolutions of the Third Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, held at Rio de Janeiro in January 1942, see Department of State Bulletin, February 7, 1942, pp. 117–141; for those of the Inter-American Conference on Systems of Economic and Financial Control, held at Washington in July 1942, see Pan American Union, Congress and Conference Series 39; Final Act of the Inter-American Conference [etc.] (Washington, 1942); for those of the Mexico City Conference, see Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Mexico City, February–March, 1945 (Washington, Pan American Union, 1945).↩
- Jacques J. Reinstein, Associate Chief, Division of Financial Affairs.↩