740.00119 Control (Japan)/8–3148
The Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 8.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to this Mission’s despatch no. 541 of August 19, 19481 and to previous correspondence concerning the Allied Council for Japan and to forward herewith2 five copies of the Corrected Verbatim Minutes of the sixty-seventh (special) meeting of the Council held on August 28, 1948.
As Chairman, I called the meeting by giving twenty-four hours’ notice to the Members at the request of the Acting Soviet Member, who had by letter dated August 27, 1948 proposed that the Council [Page 840] discuss the substance of a letter of July 22, 1948 from General Douglas MacArthur to the Prime Minister of Japan concerning revision of the National Public Service Law; copy of the letter dated August 27, 1948 is enclosed.
The Acting Soviet Member read a prepared statement, which first referred to provisions of the Potsdam Declaration and two policy decisions of the Far Eastern Commission—Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan and Principles for Japanese Trade Unions—stipulating that obstacles to the strengthening of democratic tendencies in Japan must be removed and conferring upon labor unions the right to organize freely and to engage in political activity. Following the tenor of the Acting Soviet Member’s letter to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, dated August 11, 1948 (this Mission’s despatch no. 527 of August 17, 1948),1 the statement alleged that the American Occupation authorities and the Supreme Commander, whose duty it is to carry out the Potsdam Declaration and Far Eastern Commission policy decisions, were creating obstacles in the way of labor unions and democratic organizations.
It was then stated that the letter of July 22, 1948 from the Supreme Commander to the Prime Minister of Japan (this Mission’s despatch no. 465 of July 24, 1948) was in violation of the Far Eastern Commission’s policy decision establishing principles for Japanese trade unions because it directed the Japanese Government to prohibit by law collective bargaining between the Government and its employees. The statement also referred to the Cabinet Order issued by the Japanese Government on July 31, 1948 (this Mission’s despatch no. 503, August 10, 1948)3 as a result of the Supreme Commander’s letter and listed several incidents and cases of arrest that had occurred after issuance of the Cabinet Order.
The Acting Soviet Member concluded by proposing that the Supreme Commander’s “directive” of July 22 be withdrawn, that the July 31 Cabinet Order of the Japanese Government be rescinded, and that reprisals against workers be stopped.
I opened my answering statement by emphasizing that this entire problem had already been thoroughly and publicly considered. I commented that the Soviet statement had ignored the requirement of the Potsdam Declaration that there be established in Japan a “freely inclined and responsible government,” the very objective the Supreme Commander is serving, and I observed that the main Far Eastern Commission policy at issue was limited to trade unions and had no bearing upon public service. I then described the experiment tried by the Supreme Commander in applying identical principles to public servants [Page 841] and workers in private enterprise; this experiment failed because irresponsible labor leadership, particularly that of the transportation and communications unions among the government workers, had twice forced the Supreme Commander to stop threatened general strikes and was again threatening a general strike which had been projected for August 7 of this year.
After observing that the Supreme Commander’s letter was designed to stabilize the public service of Japan and was intentionally phrased as a suggestion rather than as a directive in order to encourage the Japanese Government to exercise its own initiative, I emphasized that the Occupation is entirely friendly to labor and had restored the free trade union movement in Japan even prior to the receipt of detailed directives from Washington. The coercive connotation of the term “collective bargaining” as used by the Supreme Commander and the Japanese Government was noted, and the procedure for negotiation within the framework of the National Personnel Authority described.
In conclusion, I stated that the Supreme Commander’s letter of July 22, 1948 had been almost unanimously supported by Japanese in all walks of life and that the authority of the Government of Japan must be clearly defined in order to preserve its integrity and dignity, especially since Japan had renounced its armed forces.
As a rejoinder the Acting Soviet Member asserted that this Occupation policy was offering an opportunity for reactionary, bandit and terrorist organizations; that the Far Eastern Commission policy decision on trade unions was not limited to workers in private enterprise; and that the Occupation was not established to implement the United States civil service system but to implement the decisions of all the Far Eastern Commission countries.
The British Commonwealth Member opened a prepared statement by saying that he would discuss only one topic—labor relations in the Japanese public service. He expressed the hope that the experience of democratic countries would be considered by the Japanese in drafting their revision of the National Public Service Law. In connection with the letter of July 22 from the Supreme Commander, he said that he was not in a position to query the Supreme Commander’s estimate of the necessity for temporary curtailment of the right to strike, but that the Japanese Government order of July 31 had not made clear the distinction between clerical and administrative workers of the government and other workers, although the Supreme Commander’s letter had made a clear distinction; he added that he considered the Far Eastern Commission policy decision on trade unions applicable to government workers. He further emphasized that the principal problem is not the right to strike, but the right of government [Page 842] employees to organize and to bargain collectively, and that therefore adequate negotiating procedure must be established. He suggested that the procedure of British countries, particularly the principle of impartial third-party arbitration, would be valuable as an example to the Japanese.
The Chinese Member concluded the discussion by emphasizing that revision of the National Public Service Law must enable public servants to express fully their grievances and must enable the government to care for the welfare and interests of the people; he added that reactionary elements should not be allowed to take advantage of the situation and obstruct the development of a healthy labor movement in Japan.
Respectfully yours,