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

694.001/7–2451: Telegram

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

secret

Tokyo, July 24, 1951—8 p. m.

Topad 166. Re Deptel 94, July 20.¹ Fol is Jap Govt “explanation” dated July 24 of its observation re Article 4 draft treaty: (Begin text).²

Our views as submitted (2 July and 16 March) may be amplified as fol:

In territories to be ceded (especially Korea), Jap had huge amount of public and private property. They had a large Jap population. All these residents compelled return homeland since termination war.

All properties left behind, then disposed of irresponsibly. Occupation forces came. Remaining Jap assets disposed by these occupation authorities. Peace and order of these territories disturbed. Occupation forces were withdrawn. Civil war broke out. Properties were destroyed.

Under these circumstances, disposition property of Japan and its natls these areas and other claims against authorities presently administering these areas and residents thereof on one hand, and disposition of property in Jap of such authorities and residents (if there is any) and their claims against Jap and its natls on the other, will prove impossible in practice, even if peace treaty provided such principles as set forth, for instance, in Annex 14 Italian Treaty. It is simply because status of interrelation all these property rights and claims was basis any such disposition is not only far too complex but has been completely destroyed in six years since surrender. If we tried to make start in disposing them according to set of principles, we shall not be able get hold factual data on which such disposition is to be based.

Furthermore, easy to surmise that amount of claims of authorities administering these areas and residents thereof against Jap wld be far smaller than that of our property and claims. We feel certain, however, that they will not be satisfied with simply relinquishing claims against each other, but will bring up reparation claims against Japan some pretext or other, notwithstanding fact they were never at war with Jap. They will demand reparations on no ground at all.

Therefore, only practicable way to solve problem of property succession as between Jap and these areas will be, it seems to us, to provide in peace treaty itself that it will be closed within the areas respectively, without permitting pursuit of claims either to Jap or to the respective areas. This cutting-the-Gordian-knot way of solution is inevitable consequence of forcible mass evacuation Jap natls from these areas and also general disorder in certain areas after termination war (end text).

FonOff officials state Jap Govt does not desire at this late stage to propose treaty amendment this matter but simply to comment.³

Sebald

1. In this telegram, drafted by Mr. Fraleigh, the Department had stated in part that the Japanese comment of July 2 regarding Article 4 of the June 14 draft was “cryptic” and had requested further information. (694.001/7–2051)
2. The text given here, while complete in substance, has been syntactically telescoped. The original text of July 24 is filed in the Tokyo Post Files, 320.1 Peace Treaty.
3. A note is handwritten in the margin of the document referred to in footnote 2 above: “Brought in by Mr. Fujisaki, of Treaty Bureau, FornOff, on 24 July 51. He will bring in suggested treaty amendment this afternoon. R[ichard] B[.] F[inn]”. A second note in Mr. Finn’s handwriting reads: “Mr. F[ujisaki] called by phone later on 24 July to state J[apanese] Government] did not desire to urge a treaty change at this stage.”