Office of the Historian

Lot 54D423

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy Director of the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs (Satterthwaite)

confidential
[San Francisco,] September 4, 1951.

Participants: Netherlands Foreign Minister, Mr. Stikker
Ambassador van Roijen
Mr. Dulles
Mr. Metzger1
Mr. Satterthwaite

[Page 1332]

Following the conversation of September 3 between the Secretary, the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr. Dulles, the Dutch Ambassador, and Mr. Satterthwaite,2 Stikker and van Roijen called on Mr. Dulles to work out a draft statement which the Netherlands Foreign Minister could make to the Conference and the suggested reply which the Japanese might make to it after the Conference had terminated. Mr. Stikker emphasized that the purpose of this statement was not to obligate the Japanese actually to pay out any money to the claimants. He realized fully that this was an unlikely possibility. He emphasized again, however, the statement he had made to the Secretary the day before that the Dutch Government was faced with a difficult legal problem, namely, that without a proper interpretation agreed to by the Japanese, it would appear that the Dutch Government was, by the act of signing the Japanese Peace Treaty, giving up without due process rights held by Dutch subjects. He also pointed out again the difficult political problem with which the Government was faced and repeated that unless he had satisfaction on this point his instructions were not to sign.

Mr. Dulles asked Mr. Satterthwaite and Mr. Metzger to try to work out a satisfactory solution with the Dutch Delegation.3

[Enclosure]

Proposed Reply by the Japanese Delegation

In view of the constitutional legal limitations referred to by the Government of the Netherlands, the Government of Japan does not consider that the Government of the Netherlands by signing the Treaty has itself expropriated the private claims of its nationals so [Page 1333] that, as a consequence thereof, after the Treaty comes into force these claims would be non-existent.

However, the Japanese Government points out that, under the Treaty, Allied nationals will not be able to obtain satisfaction regarding such claims, although, as the Netherlands Government suggests, there are certain types of private claims by Allied nationals which the Japanese Government might wish voluntarily to deal with.

  1. Stanley D. Metzger of the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for European Affairs.↩
  2. Ante, p. 1323.↩

  3. The following footnote was printed in the source text:

    “Note: After further discussions between members of the U.S. Delegation and the Dutch Delegation on one hand, and the U.S. Delegation and the Japanese Delegation on the other, a formula was arrived at which satisfied all three delegations. A copy of the Dutch statement and the agreed on reply by the Japanese is attached hereto.

    “It should be noted that also the American Delegation pointed out to the Japanese the need for the Dutch Foreign Minister receiving the Japanese reply prior to his arrival back in Holland where he would have to face the Parliament, the mechanics and timing of working out the arrangements were left for settlement between the Japanese and the Dutch. It was suggested that the Dutch Foreign Minister write a letter to the head of the Japanese Delegation, quoting that pertinent part of his statement to the Conference. The Japanese Foreign Minister would then reply in the exact words quoted in the enclosure to this memorandum.”

    Only the Japanese reply is printed. The Dutch statement was delivered by Minister Stikker in the course of his address before the Conference September 6. For text, see the paragraphs headed by the numeral “2.” in Department of State, Japanese Peace Conference, p. 197.

    Material in Department of State files does not indicate whether the procedure outlined above was followed.

    ↩