894.011/10–1746
Excerpt From the Minutes of the 30th Meeting of the Far Eastern Commission on October 1725
Item 4—Provisions for the Review of a New Japanese Constitution (FEC–031/40)
General McCoy said that informal consultation participated in by the Australian, Soviet, and United States representatives had resulted in the agreement by those three on the present version of the review paper.
Mr. Makin26 said that the only remaining difference of opinion was as to the time of announcement to the Japanese of the adoption of the review principle. He recalled that ever since the original proposal for review was made by Dr. Evatt the general opinion on the Commission had been that announcement should follow immediately upon adoption of the policy by the Commission. The United States Government, however, had since doubted the wisdom of this course and had advocated postponement of announcement. The Australian view, he continued, was that announcement of the policy should take place immediately following its adoption. To delay announcement, he pointed out, might lay the Commission open to the charge from the Japanese that it had broken faith by not declaring to them the existence of the review provision, particularly since the Japanese were planning elaborate ceremonies to celebrate the new constitution.
Despite this conviction on the part of his government, Mr. Makin said, he was prepared, in order to secure unanimous adoption of the paper, to consent to delay in the time of the announcement to the Japanese of adoption of the policy. He agreed that the Supreme Commander should be consulted on the question of publication. He urged, however, that such announcement take place as soon as possible, and that it not be delayed later than the date of promulgation of the constitution.
[Page 343]Sir Carl Berendsen expressed general agreement with the views of Mr. Makin. He also expressed general agreement with the present document and was, indeed, pleased to see that the Commission had reached an agreement on the affirmation of the principle of review. He asked what difficulties the United States Government now saw in connection with the immediate announcement of the adoption of this paper. He conceded that it would have been unwise to announce such a policy while the constitution was under consideration by the Japanese Diet and he granted, furthermore, that it might be unwise to announce the decision before promulgation of the constitution. However, he said, he could not understand why the United States Government deemed it unwise to announce the review principle at the time of promulgation, and he asked for an explanation of the United States position on this point. General McCoy replied that numerous reasons had existed for the United States position. One of these reasons had been consideration for the difficult position of the Supreme Commander who had felt that nothing should be done which, in the eyes of the Japanese, would condemn a constitution at the moment of its adoption by them. Other reasons for the United States position had been of a legal nature, and these points had now been met by the present version of paragraph 1.
General McCoy presented the following formal statement:
“At the meeting of the Commission on September 21st, I stated that my Government is prepared to accept the Review paper provided that the Commission at some subsequent meeting and after obtaining the view of the Supreme Commander will consider the time and manner of issuance of the policy decision embodied in the paper. That is: if the pending paper is approved by the Commission, as we trust it will be, the next step, after transmitting this paper as a policy decision to the United States Government for communication as a directive to the Supreme Commander, will be to request the views of the Supreme Commander as to the time and manner of issuance of this policy decision. After the views of the Supreme Commander have been received, the Commission will then be in a position to consider the time and manner of the issuance of this policy decision.
“After this Review paper is passed, I should be pleased to be authorized to consult with the Supreme Commander in order to obtain his views on this subject.”
Dr. Patterson27 asked whether the reservation respecting “issuance” meant that the forwarding of a directive to the Supreme Commander would be delayed. General McCoy replied that the directive to the Supreme Commander would go forward immediately, but that the time of issuance in Japan and publicity was a question for continued [Page 344] consideration when the views of the Supreme Commander had been received.
General McCoy moved and Mr. Makin seconded the motion that the Commission adopt FEC–031/40, with the understanding that the Chairman be authorized to consult with the Supreme Commander as to the Supreme Commander’s views regarding the time and manner of issuance of the policy decision and that after the Supreme Commander’s views had been received the Commission would reconsider the time and manner of such issuance. The motion was carried unanimously.
General McCoy said that the foregoing views of Mr. Makin and Sir Carl Berendsen would be communicated to the Supreme Commander at the time of requesting his views as to the time and manner of issuance of the policy decision.28
- Copy transmitted to the Department in letter of October 17 from the Secretary General of the Par Eastern Commission (Johnson), not printed.↩
- N. J. O. Makin, Australian Ambassador and representative on the Far Eastern Commission.↩
- George S. Patterson, Canadian alternate member of the Far Eastern Commission.↩
- The communication was sent to SCAP on October 29 and a copy of it to the Far Eastern Commission on November 7.↩