740.00119 Control(Japan)/2–1347: Telegram
The Acting Political Adviser in Japan ( Bishop ) to the Secretary of State
36. Reference Department’s telegrams 43 and 44, February 11. Following observations are offered regarding proposed obligations to consult Allied Council:
Soviet proposal for insertion of clause “upon consultation with Allied Council” would, if accepted, amount to unwarranted assumption by Far Eastern Commission of executive authority over Supreme Commander requiring him to consult Allied Council on details of administration. Consultation with Allied Council is governed solely by terms of reference and strict compliance therewith has been practiced.
The Soviet proposal appears to disregard completely paragraph B, section 2, “functions” of terms of reference for Far Eastern Commission, in which it is stated “… the Commission in its activities will proceed from the fact that there has been formed an Allied Council for Japan and will respect existing control machinery in Japan including the chain of command …”. It also appears to be an entering wedge in an attempt to establish direct relationship between Allied Council and Far Eastern Commission and marks but yet another attempt by Soviets to derogate from SCAP authority and to weaken American control of the occupation. It seems to us of utmost importance that such moves should be firmly resisted. There have already occurred attempts by Japanese to circumvent SCAP and appeal through Allied Council to Far Eastern Commission. Such efforts have been completely rejected.
As required by terms of reference the Supreme Commander will consult with Allied Council on any matters of substance that might arise in implementation of this program. The individual plants to be retained can hardly be considered matters of substance. On the other hand, the minimum levels for the broad industries concerned are to be determined by Far Eastern Commission and not by SCAP decision and therefore are not subject to consultation between the Supreme Commander and Allied Council.
United States policy, as determined by SWNCC in 239/19, designates SCAP as the deciding authority for individual plants. Acceptance of Soviet proposal would violate this vital aspect of United States policy. Its value and effectiveness require, as stated in reference paper, speedy execution which is impossible of accomplishment without administrative flexibility. The Soviet proposal would effectively prevent “speedy execution”.
[Page 357]It is therefore believed that the issue should be faced squarely and that the United States should decline to accept Soviet proposal. If no solution can be found in Far Eastern Commission, United States Government presumably could issue an interim directive based upon United States policy.