740.00119 PW/6–548
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Occupied Areas (Saltzman)
Proceedings of National Security Council, September 30, 1948 With Respect to Occupation Policy in Japan1
No agreement was reached with respect to paragraph 9 on the role of the Far Eastern Commission and with respect to that part of paragraph 20 which concerns the flexibility of the levels for reparations removals. Since Mr. Lovett could not be present, paragraphs 9 and 20 were left unresolved and it was understood that Messrs. Forrestal,2 Lovett, and Royall will consult further in order to reconcile the divergent views on these paragraphs. Specific notations of action taken with respect to each point on which there was not agreement before the meeting between State and Army are as follows:
- 1.
- Para. 9—no agreement. Put over for conference between Messrs. Forrestal, Lovett and Royall.
- 2.
- Para. 19—control of Japanese war potential. The Army proposal was accepted by State.
- 3.
- Para. 20,3 a.—omission by Army of “Part A” of Advance Transfers Directive. Mr. Draper pointed out various respects in which “Part A” of this directive appears to conflict with the position as set out in Para. 20. I pointed out the desirability that there be some directive on allocations for the guidance of SCAP. Army agreed in principle that there should be a new directive on allocations in connection with a new reparations directive. I did not specifically offer the language set forth on page 2 of the State Department’s briefing memorandum. (Note: I think it would be consistent with the understanding reached at the meeting and appropriate to include so much of Part B of the directive as is consistent with the new policy in the U.S. proposal to the FEC, and in any new interim directive which may be issued.)
- 4.
- Para. 20, a.—insertion of “after that directive has been rescinded and”. This Army amendment was not discussed. Since the whole paper has not yet been agreed, this point should be considered when the [Page 1031] as yet unagreed portions are discussed by Messrs. Forrestal, Lovett, and Royall if agreement is not previously reached with the Army.
- 5.
- Para. 20, a.—proposed insertion at end of Para. 20, a. This proposal was accepted by me.
- 6.
- Para. 20, b.—insertion of “to the FEC”. This Army amendment was not specifically discussed. It should be considered reserved in connection with the whole question of the levels of retention for negotiation with the other interested countries.
- 7.
- Para. 20, b.—insertion of new para. b. (1). This amendment was discussed at length but no agreement was reached and it was put over. In the discussion representatives of the Department of the Army indicated that they definitely desired by this amendment to exclude gold, among other things, as a source of reparations.
- 8.
- Para. 20, b.(2)—proposed deletion and insertion at end of first sentence sub-para. b.(2). No agreement was reached on the Army amendment or upon the alternative language suggested by State because the whole question was left unresolved. The State Department’s point that the quantity should be stated in terms of deliveries rather than levels of retention was not brought up.
- 9.
- Para. 20, b.—proposed new sentence inserted under Table of Retention Levels. This amendment was accepted by me.
- 10.
- Para. 20, b.—insertion re Accessory Equipment. This amendment was accepted by me.
- 11.
- Para. 20, b.—proposed insertion in sub-para. b.(3). This Army amendment was accepted.
- 12.
- Para. 20, b.(4)—re 90-day period, insertion of the word “and”. This amendment was accepted.
- 13.
- Para. 20, b.(5)—insertion of the word “actual”. This amendment was accepted.
- 14.
- Para. 20, b.(6)—proposed insertion at end of sub-para. b.(6) re retention if assets not taken in 18 months. The State Department redraft set forth on page 5 of briefing memorandum was accepted by Army.
- 15.
- Para. 20, c.—proposed Army amendment adding words “and in any event not later than February 1”. This Army amendment was accepted.