740.00119 FEAC/3–249: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
73. Meeting Steering Comite, Feb 23 cancelled.
Fol summary FEC meeting, Feb 24:
Policy Towards Patents, Utility Models and Designs (FEC–284/14)
USSR member stated FEC–284/14 not acceptable to his Govt unless para 5 deleted. US member indicated deletion para 5 acceptable provided para 5 referred Comite further discussion. UK member stated [Page 679] he could not accept deletion without further instrs from his Govt. Chi amendment to para 5 that (1) in lines 10 and 11 a period be placed after word “applications” and fol words deleted “as he would have been entitled to under arrangements existing with Japan immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities” and (2) in line 10 “such” be changed to “a” was carried by vote 8 favor with 3 abstentions (USSR, France, NZ). Amended paper thereupon vetoed by USSR in face approval other members. US member immed introduced (1) as new paper original paper minus para 5 with recommendation that members seek instrs from their govts so vote could be taken next meeting and (2) amended para 5 as separate policy decisions to be referred Comite 1 further consideration.
Trial Jap War Criminals (FEC–314/7)
Comite 5 Feb 18, 1949 forwarded Commission FEC–314/7 by vote 6 favor, 4 abstentions (India, Phil, USSR, US) and 1 absence. This paper differs from FEC–314/4 only respect to changing date terminating investigation “B” and “C” suspects to June 30, 1949 and trials Sept 30, 1949. At suggestion US, Indian member proposed paper limited termination “A” trials. Policy decision limited first para FEC–314/7 approved vote 9 favor, 2 abstentions (USSR and Phil). UK member insisted second para referred back to Comite further consideration.
Econ Stabilization Japan (FEC–329/3)
US member referred to info that had already been made available FEC and understanding further info would be circulated as recd and suggested discussion questions raised could take place most appropriately working Comite. Sov member opposed such motion and reiterated charges against US. Austral, Canad, NZ members indicated support US suggestion. NZ member pointed out he did not agree Sov contention US issuance interim directive illegal. Rather he thought method unfortunate and attempt should first have been made obtain FEC agreement. He implied NZ would have no objection issuance interim directive on patents paper. As to substance interim directive, his Govt recognized measures set forth were important to success occupation and took note assurances US Govt directive could not cut across democratization program. He thought reference Comite would lead to more earnest and less public discussion. Austral member associated himself with views NZ member. Chi member called attention close relationship program econ stabilization and level econ life and reparations, expressed interest further info on implementation and suggested subject be kept on agenda of Comm and Comite. US member agreed to keep item on agenda Comm but refer views members and further info to Comite. USSR member accused US trying to lead FEC away from discussion interim directive and referred several articles New York Times [Page 680] as basis for allegation that Amer monopolists seeking control and rationalize Jap industry. He contended dropping of item from agenda Comm premature. US member replied USSR member misunderstood him, but very nature Sov statement indicated appropriateness discussion at technical level. USSR member pointed out he was not just waiting for technical info but wanted to know what steps being taken in Japan now that “Banker Dodge” was there.
Under Other Business USSR member stated Communications Ministry USSR advised by SYG ITU Jap Govt with permission SCAP joined Intl Convention Telecommunications adopted Atlantic City 1947. He contended SCAP in issuing directive permitting Japan’s joining Convention had exceeded his authority since FEC policy, June 19, 1947, Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan, no provision authorizing SCAP decide for himself question Japan’s becoming member intl intergovernmental orgs. In this connection Soviet Govt considers SCAP’s directive illegal as contradictory Basic Post-Surrender Policy Japan “in accordance with which the Japanese Government may, in the permission of the Supreme Commander, carry out functions connected only with the questions of internal administration, but not foreign relations. Therefore, Japan’s joining to the International Convention of Telecommunications has no legal value.”