740.00119 Control (Japan)/7–2647
The Political Adviser in Japan (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State
No. 1191
The Political Adviser for Japan has the honor to refer to this Mission’s despatch no. 1164, July 10, 1947,38 and to previous correspondence in regard to meetings of the Allied Council for Japan, and to forward as enclosures five copies each of the Agenda and Corrected Verbatim Minutes of the Thirty-seventh Meeting of the Council held on July 23, 1947.38
“Progress of the Implementation of the Rural Land Reform of 1945”, proposed by the Soviet Member, was the only subject on the Agenda under official matters. While the Soviet Member had lodged no complaints against the Land Reform Law at the time of its promulgation, it became readily apparent that his purpose in placing the matter on the Agenda was to emphasize, without supporting facts, his allegations that the program was a “halfway program”; that it was entirely “unsatisfactory”; and that its implementation was being unduly prolonged. As is well known to those who have studied this subject, the program is a complex one of great scope and cuts deeply through the basic traditions of the Japanese people, the majority of whom gain their living by tilling the soil. The principal objectives of the land transfer phase of the reform program are twofold: one, purchase by the Japanese Government of the great portion of the tillable land previously owned by landlords rather than by working farmers and, two, the re-sale of this land to tenant-cultivators. This program [Page 267] is moving forward according to plan; indeed purchase of land by the Japanese Government is ahead of schedule. However, presentation of facts (as was the case when the subject was previously discussed in the Council) appeared to have no effect upon the Soviet Member’s determination to brand the program as unsatisfactory. His prepared introductory statement begins on page 1 of the Minutes and his final statement begins on page 16.
Dr. L. I. Hewes, Scientific Consultant with the Agricultural Division of Natural Resources Section of Headquarters attended the meeting and at the request of the Chairman made pertinent comment on various of the Soviet allegations. The main body of Dr. Hewes’ remarks is to be found commencing on page 6 of the Minutes. The Chairman, by way of summarizing his opinion which is a considered one, stated that we (referring to the American Occupation authorities) were very much pleased with the way the program is progressing, especially in the light of the democratic methods being followed (page 6) and that he regarded the program as one of the really great accomplishments of the Occupation and one of which all the Allies could be proud (page 12). The Chairman mentioned that the program was a short two-year program but nevertheless had avoided the difficulties encountered in many other countries and mentioned that there has been no widespread violence or bloodshed, no terrorist activities, no repressions and no liquidation of peasants or landlords; that the peasant has stayed on the land; that the products have continued to be grown; and there has been no resettlement of farm families, no seizure of farm products or personal belongings, and no confiscation of land without compensation.
The British Commonwealth Member (Mr. MacMahon Ball of Australia) went to the aid of the Soviet Member and raised objections to the reading by Dr. Hewes of a paper outlining in general and entirely inoffensive terms the difficulties encountered and the length of time required in various countries in seeking land reform. One of the results of this ostensible endeavor to block what he erroneously anticipated would be an attack upon Soviet methods was that Reuters’ account of the meeting was to the effect that on the eve of the visit to Japan of Dr. Evatt, Australian Foreign Minister, a “clash” occurred in the Council between the British Commonwealth Member and the American Member. The paper to which Mr. Ball objected is inserted in the Minutes beginning on page 13.
In response to a sarcastic reference by Mr. Ball to his experience in the Council, the Chairman made the following remarks:
“I, for one, would be very happy to avoid a good many of the discussions we have had here in this Council. But if the Members of [Page 268] the Council wish to use, or mis-use, the Council as a springboard for making allegations against Occupation programs, not for the purpose of giving constructive advice but for other purposes, we have to sit here and discuss them. The Council is what the Members make of it.”
This meeting—the Soviet Member’s determined propaganda efforts directed to the peasants as against the landlords combined with his unwarranted criticism of the Occupation program and Mr. Ball’s inadventitious siding with the Soviet Member reflects a condition which has long obtained in the Council. It gives clear example of why General Headquarters has not been able to rely on the Council for assistance and is reluctant to seek its advice. It also exemplifies why the Council has, so far as its officially stated purpose is concerned, failed to achieve any practical usefulness under its Terms of Reference.