894.628/5–448
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Philander P. Claxton, Jr., Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Occupied Areas (Saltzman), to Brigadier General Saltzman
| [Participants:] | The Australian Ambassador, Mr. Makin |
| The Australian Embassy, Mr. Bullock | |
| The Australian Embassy, Mr. Harry | |
| O – Mr. Saltzman | |
| O – Mr. Claxton | |
| NA – Mr. Allison |
The Australian Ambassador called at his request and was received by Mr. Saltzman 4:45 p. m., Wednesday, May 4.
Mr. Makin read the attached aide-mémoire regarding Antarctic whaling.1 He departed from the aide-mémoire to emphasize: (1) that Australia regards Antarctic whaling by the Japanese as a matter of principle upon which the FEC should adopt a policy; (2) that the addition of a third factory ship would enable the Japanese to handle more whales and thus reduce the number available to Allied countries; and (3) that Australia felt the treatment accorded its observer on the last expedition was not satisfactory.2
Mr. Saltzman pointed out the need of the Japanese for food and the great value of whaling in supplying this need. Mr. Makin said Australia felt this need should not be supplied at the expense of the Allies who needed the same food. Mr. Saltzman said the U.S. appreciated this view but also felt that Japan should not be deprived of the benefits of whaling in a way to cause additional expense to one of the Allies—the United States. Mr. Saltzman said the U.S. had not been aware of Australia’s feeling that the treatment of its observer was not satisfactory.
[Page 748]Mr. Makin then expressed concern at what appeared to be the developing attitude by SCAP to bypass the Far Eastern Commission. He made the following declarations in addition to the points made in the attached statement3 from which he spoke.
SGAP’s Press Release
He felt it was appropriate for SCAP to send this letter to the Department of the Army but not to release it to the press.4
Japanese Coastal Patrol
He expressed Australia’s surprise that action should be taken on the coastal patrol of Japanese waters without policy action by FEC. Australia feels the Japanese Diet should not be regarded as having the right to make a determination in this situation without realizing the right of the Far Eastern Commission to make a policy determination—and thus to bypass the FEC. He emphasized that this problem relates to the external relations of Japan. A Japanese patrol, he said, could intercept and search Allied vessels. The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers is for all the Allies. FEC should be allowed to express a policy in order that its member nations may be sure that a coastal patrol would not grow to be a serious security threat twenty-five years from now. FEC should be able to pass on the size and speed of the vessels and the size of the crew. Despite the fact that FEC had a policy paper under consideration, even delay pending consideration of this paper was vetoed by the U.S. FEC was not given a chance to consider the final bill itself. The fact that seven members supported, two abstained and two opposed the proposal for delay, shows the concern of other members over the unilateral character of the action. In the course of Mr. Makin’s remarks, Mr. Saltzman pointed out that SCAP’s action was properly within his authority and not contrary to any FEC policy decision.
Japanese Going Abroad
Australia does not deny that SCAP has the power to allow Japanese to go abroad but questions whether SCAP should exert these powers when the FEC has the matter under consideration. The U.S. itself has three papers on this subject in the FEC, thus recognizing the right of FEC to take action. “Where do we come in”, Mr. Makin asked. Mr. Saltzman assured Mr. Makin that the U.S. has no intention to bypass FEC on matters coming under its terms of reference. Mr. Makin expressed appreciation of this assurance and repeated that Australia does not say that such action is beyond SCAP’s powers—it feels that [Page 749] FEC should be consulted while the question is on the agenda. Australia would not object to visits abroad by Japanese upon the concurrence of the country to be visited and upon the approval of the FEC. He felt there should be no difficulty in referring the matter to the FEC for concurrence. He emphasized that if the Japanese were allowed to circulate too freely, the Allies would find themselves unable to impose on Japan in the peace treaty the terms which should be imposed. Australia does not want the Japanese to be able to build up the idea that they are a highly desirable people, to be readily accepted. Australia does not want to let them escape their just punishment. At this point Mr. Saltzman stated that the U.S. does not want any more than Australia or the other Allies for the Japanese to be able to revive their aggressive abilities in any field, military or otherwise. On the other hand, the U.S. is considering the entire situation carefully in order to be sure that we are taking the proper steps to build up a new and peaceful Japan with which we can all live and which will not be subject to the blandishments of other ideologies.
Bauxite
Mr. Makin stated that Australia questions SCAP’s importation of bauxite at a time when the interim decision of the FEC on availabilities from the aluminum industry provides for its entire removal. This bauxite has been brought in without consultation with the FEC. He said that if SCAP had come to the FEC and stated its needs for specific purposes, FEC would have agreed on the modified use of facilities. Mr. Makin said that no one appreciates SCAP more than Australia but because he is the Supreme Commander for all the Allies, Australia feels it should be brought in to such questions through the FEC.
Fishing
Mr. Makin said nothing beyond the attached written statement.
Mr. Makin concluded his statement by saying that he may raise some of these matters with the FEC on Thursday. He wished to advise the U.S. in advance.
Mr. Harry said that Australia’s concern had not been because of individual instances but with a series of actions which were felt to indicate a trend. He therefore regarded as very interesting Mr. Saltzman’s statement that the U.S. was giving general consideration to the problem of establishing a peaceful Japan which could resist the blandishments of other ideologies. He hoped that the U.S. would be able to discuss its further views at a later time. Mr. Saltzman stated that the U.S. was fully appreciative of the very real interest of Australia and the other Allied countries in this problem and that it was our intention [Page 750] to have further discussions with Australia and other interested countries later on.