740.00119 FEAC/1–1949: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
18. Subj is Summary FEC meeting, Jan 13, 1949.
Review of Japanese Constitution ( FEC 326/4). Substance of consultative message approved with minor modification.
Economic Stabilization in Japan ( FEC 329/3). Re inquiries Chi and Philippine membs concerning phrase “in some cases surpassed” in US statement of Dec 30, 1949 [1948],1 US memb stated that he would “like to reassure them that there was no implication whatever in this phrase that SCAP or US Govt contemplated any compromise of principles set forth in the FEC decision dealing with determination of peaceful needs of Japan. They will note that that policy deals with problems of Japan’s consumption needs or, in other words, standard of living of Japanese people. That policy was explicit in dissociating standard of living concept from any arbitrary prescription for pattern of Japanese industry. In other words, paras 2 and 3 of that policy make clear that nature and size of a Japanese industrial structure capable of satisfying Japan’s peaceful needs will be affected by population growth and various other factors and that 1930–34 standard [Page 621] should not be interpreted to imply any specific level for any particular industry.”
Labor Policy in Japan ( FEC 045/5). In response to New Zealand inquiry of Dec 9, 1949 [1948],2 US memb made statement cited W82710 of Jan 13.
New Zealand memb on personal basis interpreted US statement as replying “no” to first question and “yes” to second and stated that such interpretation was not in consonance with FEC policy decision.
USSR memb stated that FEC, and not US Govt should interpret policy decisions passed by FEC. He inquired what was basis of decision by SCAP to deprive govt workers of right to strike.
US memb replied that there was no attempt on part of US to interpret Comm policies and that he hoped membs of Comm would view US statement in light of conditions in Japan.
Level of Economic Life in Japan: Policy Towards Japanese Industry ( FEC 242/32); Policy Toward Shipbuilding and Shipping ( FEC 297/10). UK memb urged that US position be presented in near future as this was most important question under consideration by FEC. New Zealand, Australia, and Netherlands associated themselves with UK views.
Policy Towards Patents, utility Models and Designs in Japan ( FEC 284/10). In order to meet Soviet objection to para 5, US memb proposed deletion in second line para 5 of words “which is a memb of Union for Protection of Industrial Property” and substitution therefor of words “at war with Japan.” UK memb considered deletion of above phrase adequate without substitution of further wording.
In view of USSR, US and UK amendments and prospect of submission of Netherlands amendments, paper referred to working comite.
Recommendations Regarding Japanese-Owned Patents, Utility Models and Designs in Territories of Countries at War with Japan. ( FEC 311/2). Also referred to working comite.
In reply to Netherlands inquiry of Dec 30, 1948 re charter on purchase of 91 Liberty ships by Japanese, US memb replied there was no foundation to this report.
On adjourning FEC meeting Gen McCoy called together reps of memb govts of FEC authorized to discuss applications of Pakistan and Burma to FEC and informed them that in view of inconclusive nature of discussions held by them on this subj, US intends to take up this question directly through diplomatic channels with other memb govts of FEC, but that US does not feel that direct approach to other [Page 622] govts would require termination of discussions among reps of memb govts of FEC.3
- See telegram 8, January 10, p. 616.↩
- See airgram A–177, December 17, 1948, Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. vi, p. 928.↩
- Identic notes were sent on January 19 and February 9 to ten FEC governments in regard to Pakistan and Burma, respectively.↩