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

894.017/9–2348

Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Occupied Areas (Saltzman) to the United States Representative on the Far Eastern Commission (McCoy)

confidential

Washington, September 23, 1948.

Subject: Policy on Japanese Government Workers (FEC–318)

The United States Government considers the policy decision proposed by the Soviet Representative on the above subject at the meeting of the Commission on September 16 [15?] 1948 to be based on a totally erroneous interpretation of the facts with which it purports to deal, and therefore finds it wholly unacceptable. Furthermore, at a time when legislation is being drafted for submission to the Diet and review by SCAP, your Government regards extended consideration by the Commission of policy with respect to the rights and duties of Japanese Government workers to be inappropriate and undesirable.

It is therefore the view of your Government that discussion of this subject by the Commission should be limited as much as is feasible, and that the policy decision proposed by the Soviet Representative should be brought to as early a vote as is compatible with your concurrent duties as Chairman.

To this end, there is attached herewith a statement of the position of your Government for use in your capacity as United States Member. The specific comment in this statement is directed only to certain remarks made by the Soviet Representative at the last meeting of the Commission, and does not deal with other views which have been or may be expressed by interested Governments in consideration of this subject.

In the light of the foregoing explanation of the purpose and limited scope of the attached statement, it is requested that its substance be presented to the Commission on an opportune occasion at an early stage of the discussion of this subject.

Charles E. Saltzman

[Annex]

Statement for the United States Representative on the Far Eastern Commission (McCoy)

confidential

Statement of United States Position on Policy Decision Proposed by the Soviet Representative

I do not wish to take up the time of this Commission with restatements of the position of my Government on the question of the rights and duties of Japanese Government workers. My Government’s considered position is as set forth in the statement by Secretary of the Army Royall, which was released to the press on September 2. The text of this statement has been circulated to members of the Commission, as have other pertinent documents on this subject, including General MacArthur’s letter to Prime Minister Ashida, the interim ordinance issued by the Japanese Government, and the minutes of the Allied Council meeting on August 28, at which the views of various interested countries were expressed.

In the opinion of my Government, the temporary character of the interim ordinance of the Japanese Government and the fact that permanent legislation is now in preparation for submission to the Diet and review by SCAP, make it unprofitable for the Commission to engage at this time in an extended consideration of this complex subject. There is, however, a policy decision before the Commission which was proposed by the Soviet Member at the last meeting of the Commission. My Government regards this proposal as based on an erroneous interpretation of the facts with which it deals, arid finds it unacceptable. I am, however, impelled to comment on certain statements made by the Soviet Ambassador at the meeting.

You will recall that Secretary Royall concluded his press release with the following statement:

“The Department of the Army and other interested Government agencies are currently reviewing the Interim Ordinance from the point of view of Allied policy; and along with General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander, will closely scrutinize the proposed Japanese legislation to ensure that such legislation as may be adopted by the Japanese Diet does not impair the basic objectives of Occupation policy for the emergence of a democratic, stable and peace-loving Japanese nation and the development and operation of democratic trade unions.”

The Soviet Ambassador has expressed the view that there is an inconsistency between this statement and Mr. Royall’s preceding statement that, “The recommendations made in General MacArthur’s letter, as we understand them, do not in any way traverse or conflict with any FEC labor policies.” I fail to see any inconsistency in these two statements. The language of General MacArthur’s letter was appropriately general rather than specific, in order that there might be wide latitude in the consideration by the Japanese Government of the proposed revision of the National Public Service legislation. In the course of such consideration, it is entirely possible that the Japanese Government may introduce comprehensive legislation containing some provisions at variance with the broad principles set forth in the General’s letter. It is the normal duty of the Supreme Commander to review all legislation adopted by the Japanese Diet to ensure that it does not impair in any respect the basic objectives of occupation policy.

The Soviet Ambassador also commented on my remark at the last meeting that besides the legal problems involved in the National Public Service Law, General MacArthur has a responsibility to ensure that the peace and order of the occupied area under his command are not destroyed. The Ambassador interpreted this remark to mean that in my opinion the Supreme Commander may have acted extralegally, and alleged that “as a result of General MacArthur’s letter disorders occurred in Japan”. My Government cannot accept either of the Ambassador’s contentions. My remarks on that occasion merely underlined the overall and indisputably legal responsibility of the Supreme Commander to prevent a disastrous strike which would imperil Japan’s economic structure.

It will be recalled that twice in the last 18 months SCAP has been obliged to prevent the occurrence of strikes led by the Government transportation and communications workers. In the light of this past experience, my Government considers entirely appropriate the Supreme Commander’s recent and timely action recommending that the Japanese Government effect a definitive and lasting clarification of the rights of Government workers. Until such clarification is made and embodied in law, the recurrence of labor disputes involving Government workers is likely to continue to jeopardize the security and objectives of the occupation.

The Japanese Government is now engaged in seeking a solution to this problem. The solution which it proposes will be subject to review by SCAP. I have no further observations to make at this time.