Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI, Part 1

694.001/7–251: Telegram

The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Secretary of State

secret
priority

Tokyo, July 2, 1951—6 p. m.

Topad 14. For Dulles from Allison. Iguchi gave us this afternoon final Jap comments on treaty¹ and as predicted no points of great substance are involved. In connection Article 4 Japs believe execution will prove impossible in practice and point to problems raised by situation in Korea.² In case provision is retained Japs believe they wld need absolute US dipl support to achieve any concrete results. They also point out necessity of specifying that “claims” mentioned this Article do not include reparations.

In connection Article 14 Japs express pain it gives them to shoulder reparations responsibility even under terms of 14 (a) but state “we will, as we must, bow to necessity”. They also request US dipl support in negotiating the necessary “arrangements” required. Respecting para 2 of Article 14 it is pointed out that provision Allied powers may dispose of Jap property subject to their jurisdiction “at any time between December 7, 1941 and the coming into force of the Peace Treaty” is notably different from the similar provision in the Italian Peace Treaty which merely stipulates property in allied territories at time of coming into force of the treaty. Japs point out present provision 14 para 2 likely to extend scope of property to be seized by including mobile property such as ships that had stopped even for only brief periods at an allied port or navigated in territorial waters of an Allied power during the specified period. They request adoption of same principle as in Italian Treaty.

Concerning Article 15, if it shld prove difficult to have law passed prior to treaty signing, the Japs suggest requesting SCAP authorization for issuance of Cabinet order embodying contents of compensation law so that peace treaty cld refer to Cabinet order and stipulate that “compensation shall be made on terms not less favorable than those provided for by this Cabinet order”. Alternatively Japan cld communicate in writing to US its intention of having compensation law enacted by Diet and send copy of the bill and have peace treaty stipulate “according to the compensation law mentioned in the Japanese Government’s communication dated July (blank) 1951”.

Same question is raised as with Article 14 on requirement to return all allied property within Japan at any time between Dec 7, 1941 and Sept 21, 1945.³ However, after hearing explanation of reasons for this provision particularly as it might apply to seized ships or cargoes after outbreak of war, Nishimura stated it wld be possible to explain reasons to Diet satisfactorily.

Re Article 16 regret is expressed re disposition of assets in neutral countries and desire made clear that such transfer be limited to public assets and only after liquidation of all claims against such assets. Japs also state that exceptions stipulated under para 2 Article 14 shld also apply under Article 16.⁴

Re Article 17 it is pointed out all records and docs of Jap prize courts turned over occupation authorities and none of them have been returned to Jap Govt. Of 58 vessels confiscated by Japan 41 have been returned, 14 were sunk and 3 are awaiting restitution at present time. Japs therefore believe peace treaty shld only stipulate that with respect to compensation for vessels and cargoes for which restitution is impossible provisions Article 14 shld apply.

Both Iguchi and Nishimura stated after handing us these comments that principal desire of Japan is for early signature of treaty and that US shld not consider Jap comments as barrier to this desire. I believe serious consideration shld be given to provisions of para 2, Article 14 to determine whether or not Jap’s point can be met, although it is quite evident Jap’s will make no real difficulty even if we do not meet any of their desires.

At same mtg Jap’s gave us memo⁵ concerning practical problems connected with political, econ and cultural relations concerning the inhabitants of the islands to be placed under trusteeship which they request us to consider but which is stated specifically is “not intended as a request nor modification of the principles stipulated in the peace treaty”.

Brief memo⁶ also was handed over repeating earlier Jap request that US consider issuance at time of peace treaty signing of some declaration concerning fate of Jap nationals still detained in USSR and China.

We were also given four copies of detailed Jap study of installations and facilities in use by Allied Occupation Forces⁷ for consideration by officials studying terms of administrative agreement. One copy will be retained in PolAd, one copy made available to SCAP, and I will bring two copies back with me. [Allison.]

Sebald

1. “Observations,” July 2, not printed. (694.001/7–951)
2. The document cited in footnote 1 above reads in part on this subject as follows: “Accordingly, we still believe that our formula submitted before (Property succession—positive or negative—terminates in the respective areas concerned) is the sole practical formula.”
3. i.e., Japan asked in the “Observations” that the provision apply to allied property as it existed as of the first day of the war.

4. In a memorandum by Mr. Finn of the conversation referred to in this telegram, the section on Article 16 reads as follows:

   “(d) Article 16. The Japanese indicated that disposition of Japanese assets in neutral countries might cause difficulty in the Diet. Mr. Allison cautioned, however, that Japan should not lose the good-will that this provision was intended to gain for Japan by protesting too strongly against such disposition. Mr. Iguchi said that the explanation previously given by Mr. Sebald to the effect that Soviet Russia was co-trustee of these assets had been very helpful and that the Japanese Government intended to take the position before the Diet that the issue was settled and therefore not open for debate. Mr. Allison said that the exceptions to Article 16 suggested by the Japanese were now under consideration.” (Tokyo Post Files: 320.1 Peace Treaty)

5. “Concerning the Islands to be Placed under Trusteeship,” undated, not printed. (694.001/7–951)
6. Not found in Department of State files.
7. A two-page “Survey of Installations and Faculties in Use by the Allied Forces,” July 2, not printed, is annexed (with other documents of Japanese origin concerning the Administrative Agreement) to a memorandum of August 6 from Mr. Fearey to Mr. Allison, also not printed. (Lot 54 D 423)