740.00119 FEAC/6–149: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
240. Subj is Summary Steering Comite, May 24, 1949.
Fishing and Aquatic Industries in Jap ( SC 271/14)
Re request for US interpretation of para 2 b, US member pointed out that under existing circumstances US agrees to broad general principle that each member nation of FEC may define on reasonable basis area in high seas within which it has direct concern, for security reasons or for enforcement of legitimate conservation measures, with respect to entry into that area of Jap vessels for fishing or other commercial aquatic activities. US acceptance of this broad general principle is, however, on assumption that it will be applied within rule of reason, and that no state will claim a direct concern over area which wld not be generally accepted as reasonable. If such case shld arise wherein nation insists on direct concern over area which has no possible relationship to national security or to legitimate conservation measures, and if SCAP cld not through negotiation secure a modification of position taken by member nation, he wld be forced to exercise discretion implied in para 2 b, with reference to extension of Jap fishing into such part of area claimed as cld have no reasonable relation to [Page 761] that nation’s national security or legitimate conservation interests. If SCAP in exercise of such discretion prejudices what FEC member country continues to regard as its own direct concern, it is recognized that each country may request FEC to review action of SCAP or resort to diplomatic approaches to other FEC member countries for general consideration of question.
Chi member suggested that US interpretation be drafted in form of amendment as US interpretation not in accord with text. Phil member inquired as to meaning of expression “legitimate conservation measures” which occurs in US statement. Chi member attempted to reword para 6 to meet Sov objection to “recommendation”, but USSR member insisted on deletion para 6.1
Trade Marks, Trade Names and Marking of Merchandise in Jap ( SC 332/5)
Paper forwarded to Steering Comite by vote of 9 favor, US opposed and USSR abstaining. US member requested postponement.
Labor Policy in Jap ( SC 318/17)
USSR member made long statement alleging that Labor Relations Adjustment Law Revision Bill and Trade Union Law Revision Bill, adopted by lower house of Jap Diet on May 12 deprived Jap workers of inalienable rights and violated policies of FEC. He revised Sov resolution accord with passage laws.
Austral member intimated that US was attempting to obscure issue. He said there was no issue of “unrestricted right to strike”, but only of a “right to strike” by workers in Govt enterprises. He also said all “essential services” were not Govt enterprises. He explained that in Austral there is “system of compulsory arbitration” but this system and right to strike do not mutually exclude each other.
Canad member said in Canad same principles are applied to workers in Govt enterprises and private enterprises and that nowhere is right to strike categorically denied.
Chi member suggested that differentiation might be made between strikes in essential Govt enterprises and strikes in non essential Govt enterprises.
Replacement of Lost Cultural Objects ( SC 272/12)
Chi member requested other Dels to indicate reaction to US and Chi positions. No comments.
Jap Assets in Neutral Countries ( SC 295/6)
Fr, Phil and US positions still reserved.
[Page 762]Removal of Aircraft and Private Munitions Plants from Jap ( SC 312)
At US request UK member agreed to ask Comm to withdraw paper, but Chi member insisted that item be retained on agenda.
- For Department of State press release of June 10 on progress of Japanese fishing industry conservation program, see Department of State Bulletin, June 26, 1949, p. 833.↩