740.00119 FEAC/4–149: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Political Adviser in Japan (Sebald)
123. Subject: Summary FEC Meeting, March 31, 1949.
Access to Japanese Technical and Scientific Information in Japan ( FEC–280/14)
US Member requested members Commission to accept extension FEC–280/14 to July 1 without prejudice to further consideration of their wishes which he stated were now before SCAP. Indian member reluctantly accepted US amendment because of peculiar circumstances of case and because of Mar 31 deadline, but made it matter of record he was accepting under protest and without any prejudice to question of further extension being considered later. He requested subject be kept on agenda. Neth and Phil members expressed their desire for extension to Dec 31, 1949 and stated they wld abstain on US amendment. Austral member stated he wld vote in favor US amendment but reserved right to have matter raised later so there cld be extension till end of year. UK member noted that in view US statement that consideration of further extension wld not be prejudiced, he wld vote for US amendment. Chairman agreed retain subject on agenda until final action taken and ruled that if there was no objection the paper wld be accepted provisionally and deadline of Mar 31 be postponed to July 1. No objections registered. (Pls pass this info to SCAP).
Trial of Japanese War Criminals ( FEC 314/12)
FEC 314/12 approved by vote of six in favor (Australia, India, France, Neth [New Zealand,] UK and US), one opposed (Phil), and four abstentions (Canada, Neth, China, USSR).
[Page 698]Complaint Against SCAP by Deported German National ( FEC 330/7)
USSR member requested postponement as he had not yet recd instrs.
Japanese Membership in International Convention of Telecommunications ( FEC 334)
Phil member stated his Govt takes position that International Convention of Telecommunications is properly open for accession only to nations endowed with full legal capacity, that Japan, being technically still an enemy nation, does not possess that legal capacity. It was his view that FEC policy decision, Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan, made clear that Japan could not properly adhere to any internatl agreement pending conclusion peace treaty. His Govt considered this principle to be valid and binding unless Commission itself deems it necessary to provide for exceptions. He noted that because of special technical nature of convention a reasonable case cld be made out for Japanese participation. But, he added, general principle continues to be valid and must stand as enunciated by this Commission. Since it was Commission that laid down this principle, only Commission itself has power to determine when exceptions may be made. This power obviously cannot be delegated to SCAP, whose wide discretion in matters of policy enforcement, especially on domestic matters, does not include discretion to set aside basic policy decision of Commission on Fon affairs of Japan. He referred to Art. 18 of Convention which provides that “Members of the Union may declare at any time that their acceptance of this Convention applies to all, or a group, or a single one of the countries or territories for whose foreign relations they are responsible” and stated that if Japan’s accession to Convention is covered by Art, it follows that phrase “members of the Union” would apply not to any one of members of Commission but to all members of body jointly, since it is they, acting as FEC, who are responsible for foreign relations of Japan. He stated that Commission now was being asked to give its sanction to accomplished fact and that since Commission had laid down general rule, representations in favor of Japanese participation should have been made to that body. The reverse, however, had happened and practical considerations might incline the Commission to let action stand. Therefore, Phil delegation wld abstain on vote on this question and at same time make it clear that it does not consider SCAP’s action on matter as constituting a precedent for future cases that wld be binding either upon itself or on Commission as whole.
New Zealand member stated that matter of principle involved shld be discussed and decided by Commission at appropriate time.