574.WTC/4–1549: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
149. Re urdes 197, Apr 1 and urtel 101, Apr 2,1 at mtg FEC Apr 14, Fr member stated that his Govt deemed it desirable that Japan be associated with ITU, but that since invitations to conference can only be sent to members and as question of Japanese membership in ITU had been raised before FEC, Fr Govt felt it necessary defer issuance invitation Japan until members of Comm had expressed views on particular question.
UK member expressed view that though Japan had stated her adherence her exercise rights under convention was in suspense until [Page 710] peace treaty, unless powers concerned agreed differently before peace treaty. He added that Japanese shld attend in capacity provided for in FEC policy on Attendance at Inter-Governmental Conferences. NZ member associated himself with UK views. Austral member reiterated view that while not objectionable and probably desirable that Japanese be party in some way to inter-governmental conventions of a technical and defined character it was view his Govt that power decide such vested in FEC. He stated that he was prepared to support a reasonable policy on question of Japan’s being a party to various technical conferences. He also indicated that fact that Japan has stated adherence to convention does not mean that it is entitled to send delegates to conference. He pointed out however that until other policies had been passed by FEC, FEC 310/11 was applicable policy decision.
Phil member referred to his statement March 31, 1949 in which he stated that Japan does not possess legal capacity to adhere to internatl conventions. USSR member repeated contention that Japan’s adherence was illegal in view Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan which authorizes Japan to have functions only in domestic affairs.
US member in lengthy statement reiterated position that Japan’s adherence to Atlantic City Convention was legal, that SCAP constituted “responsible authority” as called for in protocol and that FEC policy decision on Attendance at Inter-Governmental Conferences did not apply to representation by Japanese Govt.
Fr member stated that in view positions expressed by majority of members as to desirability of Comm’s taking stand on broad question of Japan’s accession to internatl conventions of technical character, he would advise his Govt to defer sending invitation to Japanese Govt and to leave question open until Comm had been able to take decision.
In view above position Fr delegate and expectancy that Fr Govt will only issue invitation to Japanese to act in capacity technical advisers to SCAP observers Dept has given full consideration to opinion expressed in urdes 197 that “in so far as these particular conferences are concerned, the estab of the principle of Japan’s right to participate in the administrative, nonpolitical conferences of an internatl organization of which it is a member is of considerable more intrinsic worth than wld be a compromise which wld allow Japanese interests to be represented by SCAP observers with technical advisers,” and fully supports ur position. Dept therefore proposes that you recommend to SCAP that in an effort not to prejudice overall objectives this Govt’s position on Japan’s external relations he consider fully implications of sending SCAP observer accompanied by Jap technical advisers to Paris conference even though such invitation is extended by Fr. [Page 711] It is Dept’s prelim view that sending such representation wld be inadvisable at this moment.
Ur and SCAP comment requested.
- Neither printed.↩