694.001/6–2651: Telegram
The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Secretary of State
priority
[Received June 26—11 a. m.]
Topad 2241. For Dulles from Allison. Clutton gave me under instructions this afternoon long aide-mémoire1 reiterating UK interest in shipping problem with special reference to art 12(d) of treaty. Aide-mémoire states that this is single point outstanding in minds of [Page 1150] Brit Cabinet which has otherwise approved London treaty draft.2 Aide-mémoire points out that if shipping is not excepted from provisions of 12(d) it will break precedent of 40 years standing during which HMG has insisted upon and obtained “unqualified national treatment for British shipping”. In fact Anglo-Jap commercial treaty of 1911 provided such treatment and shld UK agree to 12(d) it wld in fact mean that after victorious war UK by peace treaty is placed in worse position than before war. Morrison is reported to consider it likely that Neth and Nor Govts will also object to this provision for same reasons. According to HMG even the unqualified natl treatment recd from Japan pre-war did not protect Brit from damaging Jap discrimination and it is stated that shld HMG accept peace treaty provisions providing for qualified natl treatment it wld be “strongly condemned by the shipping and shipbuilding trades, the unions connected with them and by a large section of public opinion in the United Kingdom, and Mr. Morrison would find great difficulty in defending HMG acceptance of such a position in the House of Commons”. Aide-mémoire concludes with statement that Morrison is anxious draft treaty shld not be circulated with present UK note after art 12 but that HMG position must remain reserved unless US Govt can meet UK desires in this matter. UK therefore requests US to consider either adoption of a separate article on shipping or alternatively the amendment of art 12 to exclude shipping from the operation of para 12(d). Immed fol tel contains UK draft desired shipping art.3
It is possible that if US cld agree with UK desires on this point definite assurances cld be obtained that nothing further wld be heard with respect to limitations on Jap shipbuilding capacity. However, I gave Glutton no encouragement and told him that this was an article on which the US felt strongly but assured him that I wld pass on contents of aide-mémoire immed.
With respect to shipbuilding capacity I informed Clutton that info just recd from Jap Govt showing that of 810,000 tons annual shipbuilding capacity, some 133,000 tons capacity had either been suspended or discontinued and Jap Govt is willing to take steps to assure that this capacity will not be restored. This shld go far to reassuring [Page 1151] UK, and if US cld concur in shipping article desired by UK I believe we cld expect wholehearted Brit support for treaty with other allied powers.
Instructions requested on this point. [Allison.]
- Undated; not printed. (694.001/6–2651)↩
- On June 21.↩
-
Telegram 2242 from Tokyo, June 26, reads as follows:
“Fol UK draft shipping article referred to immed preceding msg:
“Begin text: Para: Pending the coming into force of treaty or act dealing with navigation and shipping business generally, Japan shall, during a period of four years from the coming into force of the present treaty, accord to each of the allied powers and its nationals and their vessels, on condition of herself receiving similar treatment from the allied power concerned, the following treatment:
“(a) United Nations vessels, including the passengers and cargoes carried therein, shall be accorded national treatment in respect of all matters pertaining to commerce, navigation and the treatment of shipping.
“(b) The provisions of Article 12 (c) shall apply. End text.” (694.001/6–2651)
↩