740.00119 Control (Japan)/4–2749: Airgram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
A–730. Embassy’s comments would be appreciated as to the significance of Mr. Bevin’s statement in the House of Commons on June 22 (Hansard, June 22, column 190) in reply to Mr. William Teeling’s inquiry as to the steps which His Majesty’s Government will take to bring about a peace treaty with Japan without Russian cooperation. Mr. Bevin stated that the “future international status of Japan is now under discussion in the Far Eastern Commission on proposals recently submitted by the United States delegate. The measure of agreement or disagreement in the forthcoming debates will doubtless be a guide to His Majesty’s Government’s future action on this subject.”
[Page 797]United States policy proposal to the Far Eastern Commission (re Dept. Circular telegram April 22, 1949) that Japan be permitted to resume international relationships subject to control of SCAP was for purpose of fulfilling one of the basic objectives of the occupation of facilitating the progressive resumption by Japan of its normal international responsibilities as well as indirectly bringing about normal international relationships. United States policy proposal had no direct relationship to peace treaty negotiations. Apparently Dening1 recognized the point there was no direct relationship between the two subjects (re urtel 615 [1615], April 22 [27]).2
The United Kingdom statement in the Far Eastern Commission on May 19 on the subject of Japanese participation in international relations was as follows:
“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom sympathise with the broad objectives of the United States proposal contained in FEC 339 but they cannot agree to it in its present form because:
- (a)
- it is expressed in such broad terms that it could result in the termination of a state of war with Japan without recourse to the signature of the Treaty of Peace,
- (b)
- there is no indication in it how Japan is to develop or what her status is to be, and
- (c)
- they cannot agree that the Supreme Commander should be the sole arbiter as to the degree of relationship which the Japanese shall be entitled to maintain with foreign powers outside Japan.
“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would, however, be prepared to give careful consideration to a policy proposal designed to secure a greater measure of Japanese participation in international agreements on a technical level and which would avoid the above points to which they take exception.”
For your information the reaction of most FEC countries has been sympathetic to the United States proposal but their views have been generally similar to that expressed above by the United Kingdom representative.