740.00119 Control (Japan)/5–2947
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs (Borton)
secret
[Washington,] May 29, 1947.
Subject: Developments Connected With the Occupation and Control of Japan.
| Participants: | The Honorable Norman J. O. Makin, Ambassador of Australia |
| The Honorable Alfred Stirling, Minister of Australia | |
| Major James Plimsoll, Australian Representative on the Far Eastern Commission | |
| Dean Acheson, Under Secretary of State | |
| Hugh Borton, Chief, Division of Northeast Asian Affairs |
Ambassador Makin called at his request to present an aide-mémoire (see Tab A)82 on various developments connected with the occupation and control of Japan which the Australian Government believes should not be decided in advance of the Japanese peace settlement, and to discuss orally the question of the voting procedure in the Japanese peace conference (see Tab B),83 The points raised were as follows:
- 1.
- Japanese Participation in Phosphate Industry in the Palau Islands. The Ambassador stated that the Australian Government was concerned over a “Kyoto radio broadcast” to the effect that the Japanese Government would have charge, under the Supreme Commander’s control, of all work with regard to management of the rock phosphate industry on Anguar Island in the Palau Group and that the existence and penetration of Japanese in the area under United States’ trusteeship was counter to the trusteeship agreement and threatened the future security of the region.
- Mr. Acheson stated that he had no information on this point but would look into the matter.
- 2.
- Ambassador Makin referred to Japanese participation, in an advisory capacity, in international conferences such as the Rice Study Group in India, the World Federation of Trade Unions in Prague, and the Universal Postal Union Congress in Paris. Mr. Acheson asked whether these representatives were attending at our request, which the Ambassador stated was not the case. Mr. Acheson commented that he did not think it was the policy of this Government to encourage Japanese participation in such conferences.
- 3.
- On the question of the proposed whaling expedition, the Ambassador stated that he wished to reassert the objections raised by the Australian Government to an expedition last year and that they felt no further expedition should be undertaken until after the question is settled at the peace conference. Mr. Acheson replied that the security aspects of the question were unimportant and that there was little validity to the argument that the Japanese would violate international whaling agreements as they had not done so during the expedition last year and as the expedition would again be supervised by SCAP. Mr. Acheson further stated that he thought it inappropriate to expect the American taxpayer to pay for imports of proteins equivalent to the food the Japanese would catch on such a whaling expedition. The Ambassador suggested that conversations might be entered into between our Governments on the question of Australia’s undertaking the expedition. Mr. Acheson answered that little progress had been made on that question last year and that we had been expected to pay the cost of approximately $15 million. He concluded that he would be glad to consider any specific suggestions they might have to make. The Ambassador replied that he would convey to his Government the position of the United States on this question.
- 4.
- Ambassador Makin referred to reports from Japan indicating that officials of the Japanese Foreign Office are preparing draft clauses for the peace treaty providing for the establishment of a Japanese Army, Navy, and Air Force. He added that his Government considered retention of armed forces by Japan as counter to Article I A of the proposed 25-year treaty for the disarmament and demilitarization of Japan. Mr. Acheson replied that the United States does not approve of the idea of Japan’s having armed forces. If, however, members of the Japanese Foreign Office wish to work on plans for future Japanese armed forces there was little we could do to prevent them from doing so. Such work would not necessarily have any real connection with the peace treaty.
- 5.
- Ambassador Makin referred to the note of the United States of December 13, 1946, to the Australian Government, concerning Australia’s participation in the peace conference. Ambassador Makin interpreted the reference to the peace conference being held outside the Far Eastern Commission as a commitment on our part to oppose the use of the veto in the treaty negotiations. He reiterated the firm position of the Australian Government that the treaty should be kept outside the Far Eastern Commission and that there be no veto. Mr. Acheson replied that this Government naturally had a strong interest in the peace settlement and that we would not be satisfied with a mere majority vote.
H[ugh] B[orton]