740.00119 Control (Japan)/5–2747
The Chairman of the Far Eastern Commission (McCoy) to the Assistant Secretary of State (Hilldring)
My Dear General Hilldring: At the meeting of the Far Eastern Commission on Thursday, May 22, the representative of France,79 referring to paragraph 2 of FEC–204/11, Property of War Criminals,80 said: “Mr. Chairman, on paragraph 2 of this paper it has been the view of the French delegation that the paragraph in question, that is paragraph 2, should read at the end ‘should become available for reparations’ instead of ‘occupation costs.’ There was a lengthy discussion on this point and several representatives of various governments also thought the same. The reason why the French delegation insisted on that is that ‘reparations’ is a thing which we know. It is in our mind as a definition. ‘Occupation costs’ has no definition at all. We do not know how the American Government considers the question of occupation costs and what it contains. That was sort of an academic stand but a logical stand. However, the proceeds of the property of war criminals which may be turned to occupation costs may be very little and there is no reason why such a paper should be delayed for such a difference of opinion, which, after all, as I said, is mainly academic. However, we will not, of course, vote against this paper. We will vote for it, but with the hope that the American delegation, in one of the competent committees, will be ready very soon to give us a strict definition and a very clear definition of what is meant by the American Government by ‘occupation costs.’ ”
Gen. McCoy: “I will make a note of that point.”
Mr. Douteau: “Thank you.”
Gen. McCoy: “I don’t know myself but we will try to find out. I think it is a proper request to make of the American Government however unclear the proposition is now.”
This desire for a definition of what is meant by the American Government by the term “occupation costs” is general in the Commission; and, while I have not committed the American Government in the matter, other than to undertake to communicate the query to the United States Government, I wonder whether the United States is prepared to define “occupation costs.”81
Sincerely yours,
- Robert Douteau.↩
- See paragraph 2 of text printed in Activities of the Far Eastern Commission, p. 101.↩
- On June 5 General Hilldring replied that he expected in the near future to be able to communicate the U.S. position on claims upon Japan, occupation costs included (740.00119 Control (Japan)/5–2747).↩