Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Far East and Australasia, Volume VII, Part 2

740.00119 Control (Japan)/12–2849

Memorandum by Dr. George H. Blakeslee, Political Adviser to the Chairman of the Far Eastern Commission (Hamilton)¹

[Washington,] December 27, 1949.

Japanese Participation in Technical Agreements and Conferences (SC–339/20)

i. the problem

To determine the position of the United States on SC–339/20, Japanese Participation in Technical Agreements and Conferences, in view of the approval of the policy paper by the Steering Committee including paragraph 2 which reads: “Japanese going abroad should not engage in political activities.”

ii. facts

1. United States position.

The United States Government approves the paper with the exception of paragraph 2, which it disapproves.

2. Action of the Steering Committee.

(1) To the original paragraph 2 the U.S. Member introduced an amendment which read: “Japanese going abroad should not engage in propaganda activities.” The Canadian Member introduced a substitute for the U.S. amendment which read, “Japanese going abroad should not engage in political activities.” This Canadian substitute was carried by a vote of 5 to 1 (United States).

(2) A motion of the U.S. Member to delete paragraph 2, as amended, was lost by a vote of 3 to 4.

(3) When the paper was voted on paragraph by paragraph, paragraph 2 was approved by a vote of 7 to 1 (United States).

(4) The paper as a whole was then passed by a vote of 5 to 4, with the United States Member voting in the opposition.

(5) The paper as a whole was then laid on the table until the next meeting.

3. Previous positions of the United States Government.

(1) The United States Representative voted for the FEC policy decision, “Travel outside Japan of Japanese Commercial Representatives,” which was passed on October 21, 1948, and which contained the paragraph: “The activities of Japanese commercial representatives abroad should be confined to trade. They should not be a cover for other activities such as for instance those of a political or propaganda nature.”

(2) The United States Representative voted for the policy paper FEC–240/16, “Interchange of Persons between Japan and Other Countries for Cultural Purposes”, which contained the following paragraph, “Visits of persons who might engage in any political or propaganda activities should not be permitted under this program”.

4. Views of Other States.

(1) Opposition. The Philippine Republic is opposed to the paper and the Philippine member will doubtless vote against it. The United Kingdom Government “cannot support” the paper; the United Kingdom member, however, may abstain when a vote is taken. The Chinese Government was opposed to the original paragraph 2, but the Chinese member has asked new instructions in view of the adoption of the Canadian amendment. Australia and New Zealand are now opposed to the paper, but the new Governments may send different instructions.

(2) Several of the states wish this paper to be passed, since it would give FEC sanction to a procedure which now depends on SCAP, supported by the United States Government.

(3) Several of the members are awaiting original or revised instructions: Burma, China, Australia, New Zealand, and the USSR.

iii. Discussion

(1) Advantage to the United States.

It would be to the advantage of the United States to have a FEC policy decision which would give the approval of the Far Eastern Commission to Japan’s participating with other nations in international agreements, conventions and conferences. Such a policy decision would probably meet the demands of a number of states which have insisted that Japan must receive the approval of the Far Eastern Commission in order legally to become a member of such international organizations as the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union. Some states, to be sure, are opposed to Japan’s becoming a full member of any international organization before a treaty of peace with Japan is signed and ratified. A sufficient number of states, however, would probably be satisfied by such a policy decision as SC–339/20 so that Japan would be admitted to such international organizations as the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union without particular difficulty.

Such a FEC policy decision as SC–339/20 would appear to be of further advantage to the United States since it would demonstrate the desire of the United States to cooperate with the other states on the Commission. With a possible peace conference in the near future, it is obviously the part of wisdom to maintain the good will of our coming colleagues in the conference and not needlessly to arouse their opposition and antagonism.

(2) Paragraph 2 which reads: “Japanese going abroad should not engage in political activities”.

The United States Government is at present opposed to this paragraph. Our Government, however, has previously twice voted for a similar paragraph (See II, Facts, 3). Our Government assumably does not wish Japanese abroad to engage in propaganda, espionage or political-organization activities. Our opposition is apparently based somewhat on the fact that the word “political” is so elastic in meaning that it might lead to differing interpretations and to misunderstanding (the sole reason advanced by the U.S. member in the Steering Committee); and even more on the fact that the paragraph would bar the Japanese Government from assigning political duties to its representatives to technical conferences. The paragraph would undoubtedly constitute such a bar, but this would be little more than an inconvenience; it would not bar the Japanese Government, if it had the approval of SCAP, from assigning political duties to specially appointed Japanese representatives nor from assigning such duties to the Japanese agents to be appointed to facilitate Japanese trade and to assist Japanese nationals in matters regarding their civil status and property rights.

(3) The Prospects of SC–339/20.

On the basis of discussions both within and without the Steering Committee it seems probable that this policy paper will not pass in a form completely satisfactory to the United States. Whether it will pass at all will depend on the instructions to be received by the Soviet and Chinese members, and on whether the United Kingdom member, who “cannot support the paper”, will abstain on the final vote. The amendments submitted by the United States in regard to paragraph 2 have been rejected by the majority of the Steering Committee who seem insistent on some statement which will bar the Japanese representatives from engaging in “political activities”. The United States may have to decide whether to veto the paper or to make a concession to the views of our colleagues on the Commission.

iv. Alternatives

(1) No Policy Decision.

The situation would then remain as it is at present. The Japanese Government, with the approval of SCAP, would accept any desirable invitations to international conferences and would seek full membership. A strong opposition from many other states would be encountered. Even in regard to the International Telecommunications Union, with the favorable vote of 10 to 5 in the Administrative Council, the issue of Japan’s membership cannot be said to be settled. Some of the British Commonwealth members in the FEC have stated that the issue may be submitted to the plenary session of the Union at its next meeting. Without a favorable FEC policy decision Japan’s membership in an international conference will remain possible but difficult and a matter of friction with some of the states which we regard as our best friends.

(2) A United States Interim Directive.

By an interim directive the United States Government would direct SCAP to permit the Japanese Government to accept invitations to international conferences. The ultimate authority would come from the United States rather than from SCAP, as at present. It is difficult to foresee what the effect of an interim directive would be upon the other states composing an international organization which Japan wished to join. Since the authority to issue an interim directive comes from the Terms of Reference of the Far Eastern Commission, other states might give more weight to such a directive than to an authorization derived solely from SCAP. On the other hand, if the interim directive should appear to be a procedure by which the United States attempted to disregard the Far Eastern Commission, it might strengthen the opposition of other states.

(3) A compromise by the United States.

The United States might accept paragraph 2 in some form which would be agreeable to the other states on the Far Eastern Commission. If the United States should decide to take this action, the first step would seem to be to ascertain by informal conference whether there may be any wording for the paragraph which would be mutually satisfactory to the United States and the other states on the Commission. If the other members should be insistent on some wording which would constitute a bar against “political activities” by the Japanese representatives to technical conferences, then the United States would state that, upon reconsideration and in deference to the views of the other members, it would accept the substance of the present paragraph 2 which forbids “political activities” by Japanese. The United States, further, might present a statement to be read to the Steering Committee or the Commission which would clarify and somewhat restrict the normal meaning of “political activities”.

1. Initialed by Mr. Hamilton.