740.00119 FEAC/11–1848: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
394. Meeting Steering Committee Nov 9 cancelled. Fol summary FEC meeting Nov.11:
Conduct of Trade with Japan (FEC–273/19): Chi requested postponement vote until he had instructions on para 9.
Level of Economic Life in Japan: Policy Towards Japanese Industry (FEC–242/32): Policy Towards Japanese Shipbuilding and Shipping (FEC–297/10). US and USSR members pressed for position their Govts on these papers.
Soviet Proposal Re Level of Economic Life in Japan (FEC–320): US member read fol statement:
“I have noted the various statements on the subject of FEC–320 made by the Soviet Amb before the Far Eastern Commission. I have also noted his statements released to the press. In the light of the resolution by the Soviet rep and the ensuing discussions in the Commission, [Page 895] it appears to me desirable at this juncture to state the views of my Govt on this matter.
“As will be recalled, the Allies and the Far Eastern Com have on several occasions announced policies dealing with primary and secondary war facilities and, in principle, war-supporting industries. Insofar as the peaceful economy of Japan is concerned, the US, you will recall, has never expressed the view that restrictions should be placed on peaceful Japanese production. On the contrary, the US has repeatedly advocated measures which would have the effect of stimulating the early revival of the peaceful Japanese economy. For example, it will be recalled that the basic position of my Govt on this matter was summarized as far back as Jan 21 of this year when I said to this Commission:
“My Govt believes that the Japanese Govt and people, the Far Eastern Com and its member states, and the Supreme Commander …1 should take all possible and necessary steps, consistent with the basic policies of the occupation, to bring about the early revival of the Japanese economy on a peaceful, self-supporting basis.’
“It would be highly inconsistent for my Govt to take any other view when at the same time it is pursuing in other parts of the world programs designed primarily to alleviate suffering and to bring about economic revival. We are making great efforts to contribute, in cooperation with other nations, to the raising of economic well-being and to bring about economic revival wherever possible.
“Accordingly, we welcome that part of the statement of the Sov representative which draws attention to the need for an early Japanese revival and which indicates support for the policies of the US Govt.
“The second Sov proposal, as explained by the Sov rep, calls for the establishment and exercise of international controls over war industries in Japan after the treaty of peace comes into effect. Determination of post-treaty arrangements, as the Commission is aware, falls outside its terms of reference. I am certain that you are fully aware how thoroughly the demilitarization of Japan has been carried out. It should be unnecessary to reiterate that the US is determined that Japan not again be able to undertake aggression.
“In conclusion it is the view of my Govt that the Sov resolution would serve no useful purpose, would in substance only reiterate Far Eastern Com and Allied policy decisions of long standing and would in part be beyond the competence of the Far Eastern Com.”
UK member stated view his Govt first portion Sov proposal represented set of generalities which at this stage were insufficiently helpful and second portion, viewed in context introductory clauses statement, was outside competence FEC. Neth, Phil members indicated agreement US, UK positions. Australian, Indian members awaiting instructions.
Labor Policy in Japan (FEC–318): US member announced draft Natl Publ Service Law which would be presented Diet would be [Page 896] circulated members Commission. USSR member referred statements made by French, Phil reps Oct 14 that action Gen MacArthur did not contradict Potsdam, FEC–014/9, FEC–045/5, and pointed out were no foundations for such assertions. In his view such statements absolutely incorrect. Alleged hundreds of workers arrested only because they were trying get their rights provided for them by Allies. Concluded FEC itself should defend its decisions.
Reparations Removals: Accessory Facilities, Buildings, Technical Data (FEC–299/5): Chi proposed para 2 be revised read as fol:
“Those structures or portions of such plants or establishments including equipment accessory thereto which by virtue of initial design or construction can be economically dismantled and re-erected and which, in the opinion of the SCAP, are not required for purposes of the occupation or for Japan’s peaceful needs as defined by the FEC should be made available for reparations.”
Noted that in drafting para his del Tokyo had ascertained views SCAP technical experts.
Soviet Statement Re Press Reports of Military Conference in Japan (FEC–322): USSR member expressed dissatisfaction statements issued by State Dept and in Tokyo in answer Sov statement Oct 28. USSR also referred to press report appearing New York Times Oct 30, datelined Tokyo, which referred to Alaska and Honolulu as being MacArthur’s flank and rear. Added was not difficult surmise where front was. In reply US member pointed out Commission should try to be reasonable where newspaper speculation was concerned.
- Omission as indicated in original.↩