740.00119 FEAC/10–2248: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
368. Meeting FEC, Oct 14, 1948. Travel Outside Japan of Jap Commercial Representatives (FEC–293/11). US member informed Commission that, at request US Govt, occupation authorities have taken steps caution all Jap authorized travel abroad that in interest their own country discretion should be used in public statements and press interviews avoid exciting suspicion they are engaging in propaganda activities. He noted this paper and FEC–240/16 contained provisions re propaganda activities Jap abroad and suggested if Commission passed these papers it would be doing great deal toward precluding recurrence incidents like Suzuki affair. Soviet amendments, set forth SC–293/7, defeated. Chi member suggested meaning para 1 c would be clearer if words “in FEC–106/1”1 added. UK member stated he interpreted wording para 1 c to apply peaceful needs Japan as defined at any particular moment, and that he preferred phrase as is. USSR member asked postponement in view fact he had no instructions on new version para 1 c and would have ask his Govt for instructions on Chi amendment if formally introduced.
USSR member requested postponement FEC–240/16, Interchange Persons Between Japan and Other Countries for Cultural Purposes; [Page 874] FEC–277/16, Principles for Jap Farmers’ Organizations; and FEC–319/2, Danish Reparations Claim.
Conduct Trade with Japan (FEC–273/19). Chi opposed; positions India and Phil reserved in absence instructions; position USSR reserved due unacceptability para 1 c.
Level Economic Life in Japan (FEC–242/32) and Soviet proposal (FEC–320). In reply UK inquiry re USSR views FEC–242/32, USSR stated that when Commission discussed FEC–242/32 he would present Soviet views and contended Soviet statement preceded consideration FEC–242/32. Re US question presented last meeting as to what powers USSR considered most interested in preventing new Jap aggression, he stated Soviet Del considered question should be decided at peace conference on principle 2nd para proposed policy decision. Re Australian question whether Soviet statement referred to facilities mentioned paras 2 and 3 FEC–084/21 or those para 5 that policy he replied Soviet Del agrees with definition categories of industries as stated FEC–084/21. Australian member did not consider this answer adequate and rephrased question to inquire meaning “war industries” and “peaceful industries” relative FEC–084/21. New Zealand, Chi, Canadian and UK members supported Australian inquiry. USSR member thought Australian question answered already but stated he would try have further explanation available next meeting. UK member observed he found it difficult discuss Soviet statement until USSR position FEC–242/32 clarified. He thereupon brought FEC–242/32 under consideration and asked for Soviet position. USSR member again reiterated contention discussion Soviet statement must precede discussion FEC–242/32. Chairman noted that next meeting he probably have make ruling whether FEC–242/32 or Soviet proposal should be considered first.
Labor Policy in Japan: French member made statement:
“The Soviet delegate in his statements and clarifications concerning the present labor policy in Japan has referred the Commission to Article 10 of the Potsdam Declaration and to the policy decision of the Commission, No. FEC–014/9 ‘Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan of June 19, 1947.
“It is the view of the French Government that these two papers do not contain any positive evidence that could be called upon in order to request a reconsideration by SCAP of the latter’s letter to the Japanese Premier dated July 22nd 1948.
“It seems clear, on the other hand, that the policy decision of the Commission, No. FEC–045/5 ‘Principles for Japanese Trade Unions of December 6, 1946, in its provisions relevant to paragraph 4, does not apply to the official labor in Japan but only to trade union workers.
“Since, as shown by the above, the basic policy papers do not impose a solution to the problem now before the Commission, it would not be wise to cast any judgment in this matter in the light only of democratic principles when the case should be considered also in close relation [Page 875] to the duties of the occupation. From this angle the responsible authorities for this occupation may maintain that any strike of the official labor in Japan would endanger order and security in that country and, therefore, the very objectives of the occupation.
“As a matter of fact, as long as Japan is under the terms of her surrender to the Allied Powers, it is true that certain political liberties can be denied her, should the higher objectives of the occupation be at stake. It is only when Japan will be freed from all obligations which are still restricting her sovereignty that it will be up to her to recognize or not the right of strike for official labor.”
Phil member stated that considering issue FEC should not lose sight ultimate objectives occupation. He felt it unfortunate there no definite understanding applicability policy on trade unions to Govt workers but this need not be resolved in deciding what position take on Sov proposal for, even if it were assumed policy applied such labor groups, SCAP empowered take action under para 5 said policy.
NZ member expressed fear interim ordinance would tend become permanent. His Govt intensely interested in what happening in Japan. Because lapse time he felt may become necessary Commission consider not only whole complex subject but also interim ordinance.
USSR member formally introduced proposed policy decision on labor. Neth member associated himself with views French member, stated it his Govt’s opinion SCAP, in issuing directive Jap Govt, never had in mind either formulate new policy on right strike or right collective bargaining, and SCAP had not violated any policy FEC. Item retained agenda.
- January 23, 1947, Activities of the Far Eastern Commission, report, p. 85.↩