740.00119 FEAC/12–1748: Airgram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
A–177. Subject is Summary FEC Meeting, December 9, 1948. Trial of Japanese War Criminals ( FEC–314/4). Philippine member indicated that his Government would oppose proposal on grounds that first part was unnecessary as SCAP had approved recommendation of Chief Prosecutor of IMTFE that no further trials with respect to “A” offenses be initiated and that second part, even though worded as a [Page 929] recommendation was an officious intrusion of Commission into matter entirely within competence of member states. Canadian member stated that in view of Philippine statement he would have to abstain if vote was taken today as he was instructed to vote for paper which was acceptable to those countries directly concerned in matter. As French and Australian members also indicated desire to study Philippine statement, action was deferred. In reply to Chinese and New Zealand inquiries as to recent action of Supreme Court, US member stated there was now a motion before the Supreme Court for permission to file a petition of habeas corpus and that the Court had merely decided to hear arguments on this motion.
Principles for Japanese Farmers’ Organizations ( FEC–277/18). Adopted by a vote of 10 in favor with 1 (USSR) abstention.1
Labor Policy in Japan ( FEC–310). New Zealand member referred to labor legislation and pointed out that there should be some adequate means to enable organizations of Government employees of all kinds to discuss and negotiate, if necessary to arbitrate, the terms of their employment and that there should be something more than permission, to approach and attempt to persuade employers to meet their views. It was his view that to deprive workers in key industries of their right to strike without the provision of some fully adequate substitute, would, except in those cases where the objectives of the occupation were prejudiced, not only be quite clearly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Commission’s policy decision, but would be more-characteristic of a medieval approach to such matters than that of a modern enlightened state. He distinguished between civil servants proper and industrial employees of the Government and conceded that a more restricted order of rights might be accorded the former group. He did not feel the policy decision should be interpreted to exclude ordinary civil servants. He added that it could not be suggested by any stretch of the imagination that the policy decision excludes industrial employees of the Government. He noted that the National Public Service Law apparently covered a number of workers in the latter category. He added that it was obviously desirable that if a group of civil servants were to be severely restricted in their rights that group should be kept as small as possible and that it was also desirable that no precedent should be set which might encourage the Japanese Government to include within that confined group workers in other industries which in the future they may bring under national control. He added that he was not attempting to pass finally on any of the questions raised, but thought he was entitled to ask and the Commission entitled to learn of the US Delegation
[Page 930]- “(1) Whether in the opinion of the US delegation the
Commission’s policy decision 045/5 applies
- (a)
- to all workers employed by the Government, or
- (b)
- to some of the workers employed by the Government, and if (b) to which, and
- (2) Whether, in the opinion of the US delegation, the Japanese legislation now in contemplation is in conformity with the policy decision contained in Document 045/5.”
Indian member thought that clear distinction should be made between ordinary civil servants and industrial workers and that latter should have right to strike.
Soviet Proposal Regarding Level of Economic Life in Japan ( FEC–320). The Soviet proposal was defeated by a vote of 10 opposed and one (USSR) in favor. After vote was taken, USSR member made statement to effect that rejection of Soviet proposal providing for development of Japan’s peaceful industry unhampered by any limitations and prohibition of Japan’s war industries testifies to fact that majority in FEC hold different positions on this matter. It was understood that no release would be made to press. However, Soviet member released statement same afternoon. Following morning, Chairman FEC issued statement clarifying views of opposing ten members that first part Soviet proposal unnecessary and second part beyond competence FEC.
Under other business, New Zealand member and Chairman of Steering Committee informed Chairman FEC, that both Working Committee and Steering Committee were considering subject of review of Japanese Constitution as provided in FEC–031/41.
US member made statement explaining why US had withdrawn its support from FEC–230, Excessive Concentration of Economic Power in Japan and also announced US intended to release this statement to the press.2