Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Far East and Australasia, Volume VI

740.00119 FEAC/5—1748

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Northeast Asia Affairs (Allison)

confidential

[Washington,] May 17, 1948.

Participants:	Mr. G. K. Powles, Counselor, New Zealand Legation
	Mr. W. W. Butterworth, Director, FE
	Mr. J. M. Allison, Chief, NA

Mr. Powles called this afternoon at his request and under instructions from his Government left the attached aide-mémoire.¹ After having read the aide-mémoire aloud Mr. Powles was asked whether or not the New Zealand Government had in mind any specific instances wherein they considered that SCAP had exceeded his authority and it was pointed out to him that in the view of the United States Government the recent action of SCAP with regard to a Maritime Safety Authority in Japan did not constitute an abuse of his powers. Mr. Powles stated that his Government did not have in mind the controversy over the Maritime Safety Authorities Bill nor was he able to give any specific instances in which SCAP had exceeded his authority. However, the New Zealand Government had been concerned at recent statements made in Committees of the FEC with regard to the intention of the United States Government to authorize SCAP to use his discretion in permitting the travel abroad of Japanese nationals for cultural and commercial purposes without reference to the FEC. Mr. Powles pointed out that his Government had come a long way from its original position and that it now recognized the necessity for Japanese to travel abroad under proper controls and it recognized also the desirability for SCAP to be represented at international conferences and to take with him to such conferences when necessary Japanese technicians.² However, the New Zealand Government felt that this was a matter of concern to the FEC and it had been disappointed that the American Government had not been disposed even to permit a policy decision on the matter which would require SCAP merely to inform the FEC whenever he had accepted an invitation to an international conference. Mr. Butterworth pointed out that inasmuch as more than two years had gone by without a peace treaty and as there was no immediate prospect of concluding such a treaty it was necessary to re-assess the situation and make adjustments in procedures which had originally been designed for a temporary period. In the view of the United States Government it is of real importance that the actions of the FEC be confined to its terms of reference and that it make decisions only on matters of broad policy. When it began to take a detailed interest in matters which appeared to be purely administration or implementation of policy the United States Government would oppose such action. Mr. Powles was cautioned that continuation of attempts by the FEC to make decisions in the fields of administration or implementation would not redound to the strength of the FEC, would merely make it necessary for the United States Government to increase the use of the veto and might result in the severe curtailment of the legitimate activities of the FEC. In response to a question, Mr. Powles stated that in his opinion the chief concern of the FEC countries was the fact that they had little if any chance to participate in planning policy with regard to-Japan and that in view of the part that these nations had played in the war against Japan this was a matter of some concern to them.

Mr. Powles stated that this démarche on the part of his Government was not a result of the recent conversations in Washington with Mr. McIntosh of the New Zealand Office of External Affairs, but had been planned independently of any report Mr. McIntosh might have made. He pointed out that Mr. McIntosh had only just today arrived in New Zealand from his trip to the United States.

1. Dated May 17, not printed.
2. On May 20 Mr. Borton telephoned Mr. Powles that the tentative U.S. view was “that we would be agreeable to changing the policy to read that SCAP’s staff should attend the conference in accordance with the decision of the conference rather than the terms of the invitation” (740.00119 FEAC/5–2048).