740.00119 Control (Japan)/7–1348: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
255. At meeting Steering Committee July 6, re SC 309, Travel of Japanese Abroad, Australian Member stated that his Govt considering suggestion that objectives of paper might be achieved through working out of informal arrangements with SCAP. He thought it preferable that his paper be retained on agenda and considered along with SC 293/6, Travel Outside Japan of Japanese Commercial Representatives—also on agenda of Steering Committee. Re SC 293/6 positions of Australia, China and Phils reserved and USSR has proposed certain amendments.
Re SC 273/14, Conduct of Trade with Japan, US position was still reserved on para seven. However, on July 7, US circulated substitute paper, SC 273/15.1
At FEC meeting July 8, US Member requested that in view of circulation of US position on SC 273/14, FEC 304/16, Port and Service Charges on Foreign Vessels in Japan, be retained on agenda.
Re inquiry of Chinese Member on source and substance of articles appearing in Jap newspapers regarding deliberations in FEC on program for replacement of lost cultural objects, US Member stated2 that it was view of US Govt that it would be improper for SCAP, US Govt, or FEC to take special cognizance of the appearance of any of these articles in press. He referred to fact that articles in Jap newspapers have been published under a Washington dateline and read text of articles which had been transmitted by SCAP. The Chinese [Page 829] Member was of view that so long as wrong impression had been created it was only fair to take steps with a view to correcting it. He requested that item be retained on agenda.
In course of FEC consideration of Steering Committee action in tabling official English text of Maritime Safety Authority Law, USSR Member introduced proposal that:
“The Far Eastern Commission notes that the question of the establishment of a maritime police in Japan has been decided by the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander without prior consideration of this question by the Far Eastern Commission”.
FEC approved action of Steering Committee by vote of 9 in favor; 1 opposed (USSR); and 1 abstention (France). In agreeing to proposal various members made statements relative to various aspects of subject. French representative made following statement:
“It is the opinion of the French Delegation that the usual internationally recognized procedure for visiting a vessel in territorial waters cannot be carried out in Japanese territorial waters, under the present circumstances of the occupation of Japan, under any other jurisdiction than that of SCAP, the latter acting in behalf of the Allied Powers. It is therefore to be expected that for the moment, the French Government would not recognize to any Japanese authority the right to stop and search a vessel of French registry in Japanese territorial waters”.
Chinese Member reserved right to make statement on same subject on receiving instructions from his Govt. He added that his approval of Steering Committee action did not imply approval of substance of law. Indian and Australian Members referred to statements made in Steering Committee on June 29 (Deptel 2433) in abstaining on USSR proposal.
USSR Member objected to Chairman’s ruling that since motion was procedural, it was carried. Inconclusive discussion followed on method of voting on procedural questions with USSR insisting on concurrence of US, UK, USSR and China on all questions, while other members appeared to favor more liberal method of voting on procedural questions.
USSR Member insisted that vote be taken on his proposal which was defeated by vote of 2 (US and Netherlands) to 1 (USSR) with 8 abstentions. The USSR Member thereupon read substance of his proposal into minutes as view of Soviet Delegation.