740.00119 FEAC/4–2948
Memorandum by Mr. Hugh Borton, Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs (Butterworth), to the Director
Subject: FEC Meeting of April 29, 1948
Maritime Safety Authorities Bill
General McCoy opened the discussion on the New Zealand proposal to have implementation of the Bill postponed until after the FEC had had adequate opportunity to consider the matter, by stating the U.S. views had been set forth at the Steering Committee meeting of April 27 (see attachment to my memorandum reference Steering Committee dated April 281). The U.K. member stated under instructions that his Government was anxious that there be no implementation of the law until after the FEC had had time to consider the matter, that no vessels should be over 300 tons and that their speed should be reduced to 12 knots. He stated his Government approved the New Zealand policy. (The Bill permits vessels of 1500 tons and 15 knots.) The French representative stated his Government approved the New Zealand proposal because the Bill did not make adequate provision concerning the armament and nature of the vessels and it provided for contact with allied nationals when Japan was still technically at war and consequently there was no legal basis for such contact. The Canadian representative said his Government opposed the New Zealand policy. The Chinese member supported the New Zealand proposal as he wished to have time to consider the question of how the patrol ships should be equipped.
The United States member then stated that the Japanese constitution provides there should be no army and navy and that SCAP was strictly interpreting this provision. He added that it would be wrong for the FEC to interfere with the normal operations of the Japanese Government unless the Japanese Government took an action which clearly contravened FEC present policies. He stated that the FEC can, if it wishes, pass a governing and controlling policy at any time but that according to SCAP reports the present Bill is consistent with the FEC Disarmament paper.2 He further stated that no naval officers are to be used in the operation and that present ships used for this purpose [Page 742] are small and are under the 12-knot limit suggested by the U.K. member. The French member then stated that there was no legal basis for the Japanese right to search foreign ships and that such legality could be obtained only by passage of a policy decision by the FEC. The U.S. member answered this charge by quoting from the Terms of Surrender which state that the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government are subject to SCAP.
The Australian member stated that as the FEC, as opposed to the Japanese Diet, governs Japan the Commission should have the right to delay action on any Bill ‘before the Diet as long as it wished and must clearly supervise whatever the Diet does until there is a peace treaty. General McCoy vehemently challenged this statement by emphasizing that SCAP governs Japan as the sole executive authority. The Indian member said he would abstain from voting, while the Philippine member stated that as substantial amendments to the law were necessary to make it consistent with FEC policies, he would favor the New Zealand proposal. The Soviet member stated that the FEC should pass a policy decision prior to promulgation of the Bill and moved an amendment to the New Zealand proposal which would require an FEC decision prior to promulgation of the bill. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 7 to 1. In the final vote on the New Zealand proposal, India and the Soviet Union abstained, the U.S. and Canada opposed, and the other countries voted in favor of it. The paper was lost because of the U.S. veto.
The New Zealand member then asked that the Maritime Safety Authorities Bill, when an official text of the bill as passed arrived, be placed on the agenda of the Steering Committee.
The Commission did not consider any other matters on its agenda.