740.00119 FEAC/3–2949: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
116. Summary FEC Meeting March 24, 1949.
Access to Japanese Technical and Scientific Information in Japan ( FEC 280/14)
US Member proposed that paper be amended to extend period to July 1, 1949, instead of Dec. 31 as now provided in paper, and stated that govts eligible under FEC–280/9 had not made full use of time available to them up to present. US amendment failed to receive any support in Commission. Indian, Netherlands, Philippine, Australian and Soviet members pointed out that SCAP procedure for implementation of directive was issued only on Aug 6 and that actual inspection began only last part of Aug. These members emphasized difficulty their govts encountered to find qualified technical experts, to decide what they wanted in Japan, and to arrange for transportation. Netherlands member pointed out that his govt had wanted to give Indonesia first opportunity to make use of time in Japan and that time was lost when it was found that Indonesia could supply only one technical expert of broad qualifications. Australian member indicated that his govt had been negotiating for almost six months with SCAP over a particular process and just now when it was expected that negotiations would be brought to a successful conclusion, the program would be suddenly finished and all their months of negotiation would be lost. Soviet member contended that conditions of work under which experts were to receive technical information were not favorable. Australia, Philippines, India and Netherlands indicated strong desire to send technicians if policy adequately extended. US Member stated that in order to be as helpful as possible in meeting present deadline, he would ask his govt to consider requesting SCAP to allow technicians now present in Japan to continue their investigations until July 1 provided it was feasible.
Trial of Japanese War Criminals ( FEC–314/12)
Philippine member expressed his objection to FEC–314/12 for following reasons:
- 1.
- FEC has no power of control over National Military Tribunals charged with trial of “B and C” suspects outside Japan;
- 2.
- distinction should be drawn between “A” suspects, on one hand, and “B and C” on the other, for suspects falling under latter category are no different from persons who have violated domestic laws of countries;
- 3.
- setting of target date for termination of investigation and trial of Japanese war criminals is impractical and fraught with danger;
- 4.
- inclusion of words “if possible” serves only to create erroneous impression that member countries, where trials are pending, are guilty of unduly delaying termination of proceedings against Jap war criminals.
Australian member opposed Soviet proposal on grounds that it would give unfair advantage to war crime suspects in Japan. He added that in view of Philippine objection he desired to consult his govt on “recommendation” and would abstain if vote were called for on FEC–314/2 [12]. Canadian member associated himself with Australian views.
Soviet amendments were lost by vote of 1 in favor, 7 opposed and 3 abstentions (China, India, US). FEC–314/12 retained on agenda so that members could consult govts for further instructions.
Economic Stabilization in Japan
Chairman noted that there had been considerable discussion in working committee on this subject.
Reparations Removals: Accessory Facilities, Buildings, Technical Data ( FEC–299/5)
Chinese and Netherlands members called attention of Commission to their amendments in FEC 299/9 and FEC 299/8 respectively.
Japanese Membership in International Convention of Telecommunications ( FEC–334). Philippine member stated he was still awaiting instructions.