740.00119 FEAC/4–848
Memorandum of Mr. Hugh
Borton, Special Assistant to the Director of the
Office of Far Eastern Affairs (Butterworth), to the Director
confidential
[Washington,] April 8,
1948.
Subject: FEC Meeting
of April 8, 1948
1. Consideration of Attendance at
Inter-governmental Conferences (
FEC 300 series).
General McCoy prefaced the discussion on these papers by stating that
the position of the United States was firm that the FEC was a policy-making body and had
nothing to do with the details connected with SCAP’s executive authority. This
position had been consistently taken by the U.S. representative and
hence the United States could not agree with the Philippine
amendment (FEC 300/4) which provided
that “such observers may be accompanied by Japanese technical
personnel when deemed necessary by SCAP and previously approved by the FEC”. The Soviet member maintained that
the Philippine amendment was not merely a technical matter but
concerned the political aspect of the matter and a provision to that
effect should be inserted in the policy decision. The Chinese
Ambassador stated that the Philippine proposal was a further
compromise which he hoped would expedite approval of the paper. He
was prepared to approve the Philippine amendment but in so doing did
not wish to censure any action which SCAP had already taken in connection with
representation at conferences. The Philippine amendment was
supported by the Philippines and China, opposed by New Zealand, the
Netherlands, Canada, the U.S. and the United Kingdom, with the
remaining members abstaining. In reference to the basic paper, the
New Zealand proposal (FEC 300/3),
the New Zealand representative suggested that it might be better to
postpone further discussion on the paper until everyone had received
instructions. General McCoy stated that he had received
[Page 725]
instructions from his
Government (see attached),1 but that as the Indian delegation had not yet
received its instructions, discussion of the paper should be
postponed. In the discussion on the matter at his staff meeting, he
indicated that he is considering the possibility of seeing whether
further discussions with the State Department will result in a
position which would be more acceptable to the other FEC members.
2. Civil Aviation (
FEC 245/18–19).
As the delegations had not received instructions on the latest Soviet
amendments, the paper was retained on the agenda.
3. Proposed U.S. Credits to
Japan (
FEC 298).
The Soviet representative read the attached statement.2 Following the reading of
the statement, General McCoy remarked that as the Soviet statement
seemed to be addressed to the United States Government he would
bring the matter to its attention.
[Annex 1]
Proposed U.S. Substitute for 300/1
Attendance at Inter-Governmental
Conferences
The Far Eastern Commission decides as a matter of policy that in
reference to SCAP attendance at
inter-governmental conferences:
- 1.
- Upon receipt of an appropriate invitation SCAP may appoint members
of his staff as representatives or observers at
inter-governmental conferences, attendance at which he
deems to be in the interest of the occupation.
- 2.
- Such representatives or observers may be accompanied
by Japanese technical personnel when deemed necessary by
SCAP.
- 3.
- A country acting as host to an inter-governmental
conference should be under no obligation to receive
Japanese nationals without its consent.
[Annex 2]
Soviet Statement to Far Eastern Commission,
April 8, 1948
At the last meeting of the Far Eastern Commission I already
pointed out that the Soviet Delegation considered the answers of
the United States Delegation to our questions concerning credits
planned by the
[Page 726]
United
States for the reconstruction of the Japanese industry to be
unsatisfactory.
Indeed the Far Eastern Commission which is called to formulate
the policies, principles, and standards in conformity with which
the fulfillment by Japan of its obligations under the Terms of
Surrender may be accomplished, remains in ignorance on such an
important political question as the planning of reconstruction
of Japanese industry.
As is known, at the meeting of the Far Eastern Commission on
January 21, 1948, the USA representative stated the view of his
Government as to the necessity to work out new measures for the
purpose of creating a self-supporting economy in Japan, and
requested favorable consideration of the proposed US policy when
it would be presented for the discussion by the Far Eastern
Commission.
In my conversation with General McCoy on February 9, I tried to
find out what would be the substance of the new US proposals and
to what matters they would be related. However, General McCoy,
as the United States Representative, confined himself in this
conversation to a rather indefinite answer, having stated that
these proposals were still being worked out by the experts in
appropriate departments and as soon as they were ready they
would be presented for the consideration by the Far Eastern
Commission.
More than sufficient time has elapsed since that date, but these
new proposals have not yet been submitted to the Commission for
the consideration. At the same time, in the American press there
are again and again appearing articles which refer to the fact
that the U.S. Government is working out its policy in regard to
reconstruction of the Japanese industry and is planning the
allotment of certain credits for this purpose in evasion of the
Far Eastern Commission.
In addition to the facts set forth in FEC–298 I would like to draw the attention of the
Commission to the articles in the New York
Herald Tribune and PM of April
7, 1948, regarding the credits planned by the USA for the
reconstruction of the Japanese industry.
I would like to emphasize once more that it was the Far Eastern
Commission, but not a single government, to whom the Moscow
Conference of the four Foreign Ministers has entrusted the
formulation of the policies, principles, and standards in
conformity with the fulfillment by Japan of its obligations
under the Terms of Surrender may be accomplished.
Therefore, the Soviet Delegation considers it necessary to state,
in order to make clear that without the policy decision of the
Far Eastern Commission on the question of the reconstruction of
Japanese industry no other unilateral decisions and actions
could be considered legal.
