2 FOOD SUPPLY FOR JAPAN "Supply of Food for Civilian Consumption in Japan", approved December 11, 1947, is the other economic policy not yet mentioned.' A previous decision on the subject of food had been taken by the Commission in April 1946; it stated that during the current world food shortage no imports of foods to Japan should be permitted "which will have the effect of giving to the Japanese a priority or preferential treatment over the requirements of the peoples of any Allied Power or liberated area". The subsequent decision reaffirmed this principle for "the present crop year (November 1, 1947-October 31, 1948)" and directed the Supreme Commander to take necessary measures both to obtain "maximum production of indigenous food" and to "ensure equitable distribution of indigenous food supplies by maintaining and improving the system of collection, rationing, and price control." OTHER ECONOMIC ISSUES Two other important economic issues previously reported as under consideration—a schedule of reparations percentage shares and a determination of appropriate peacetime levels for specific Japanese industries-are, as we have already seen, both undetermined in the Far Eastern Commission. DISPOSITION OF OCCUPATION COURT FINES The three remaining policies approved since the appearance of the previous report fall into a miscellaneous category. The first of these, adopted on August 7, 1947, is entitled "Disposition of Funds Covering Fines Collected by Allied Military Occupation Courts". It authorizes military occupation courts to make use of such fines or other sums as they may collect to defray the costs of the Allied occupation. Money collected as fines "should be assigned to meet the occupation costs of the forces whose courts ordered payment to be made." Fines collected by military occupation courts set up in the area supervised by the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF), for example, can thus be used to meet occupation expenses within the BCOF area itself. ACCESS TO JAPANESE TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION The second miscellaneous policy is "Access to Japanese Technical and Scientific Information in Japan," adopted June 24, 1948, giving technical representatives of governments who are members of the Far Eastern Commission "access to and the right to take copies of the details of any technical or scientific processes of industrial or commercial value which are of Japanese origin and ownership and 1 Department of State Bulletin of January 18, 1948, p. 93. 2 Activities of the Far Eastern Commission, appendix 35, p. 90. Department of State Bulletin of August 31, 1947, p. 423. ACCESS TO JAPANESE TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION IN JAPAN (FEC Policy Decision, June 24, 1948) During the period from 1 July 1948 through 31 March 1949, technical representatives of the Governments of members of the Far Eastern Commission should be permitted access to and the right to take copies of the details of any technical or scientific processes of industrial or commercial value which are of Japanese origin and ownership and which were developed prior to 31 December 1945. Technical or scientific information obtained by any representative of the government of a member of the Far Eastern Commission pursuant to this policy statement should be promptly and fully disclosed to SCAP for dissemination to other interested members of the Far Eastern Commission upon specific request. which were developed prior to December 31, 1945." Access is limited, however, to the period from July 1, 1948, through March 31, 1949, and any information thus obtained must be "promptly and fully disclosed to SCAP for dissemination to other interested members of the Far Eastern Commission upon specific request." ACCESS TO JAPANESE TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION BY NON-FEC COUNTRIES 1 The Far Eastern Commission on December 23, 1948, approved a policy extending the right of access to Japanese technical and scientific information to countries which were at war with Japan subsequent to December 1941 but which are not members of the Far Eastern Commission. This policy decision, "Access to Japanese Technical and Scientific Information by Non-FEC Countries at War With Japan", provides for investigation of Japanese technical processes by non-FEC countries in so far as this is administratively practical and without prejudice to arrangements for FEC member nations in accordance with the policy adopted by the Commission on June 24, 1948, and referred to immediately above. The policy further provides that any technical or scientific information disclosed to SCAP under the terms of the policy decision of June 24 shall, upon request, be made available to non-FEČ countries. WASHINGTON, D. C., January 4, 1949. NELSON T. JOHNSON, KOREA 2 114. THE INDEPENDENCE OF KOREA Statement by the President, September 18, 1945 3 The surrender of the Japanese forces in Seoul, ancient Korean capital, heralds the liberation of a freedom-loving and heroic people. Despite their long and cruel subjection under the warlords of Japan, the Koreans have kept alive their devotion to national liberty and to their proud cultural heritage. This subjection has now ended. The Japanese warlords are being removed. Such Japanese as may be temporarily retained are being utilized as servants of the Korean POLICY TOWARD ACCESS TO JAPANESE TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION BY NON-FEC COUN TRIES AT WAR WITH JAPAN (FEC Policy Decision, 23 December 1948): 1. SCAP may, insofar as it proves administratively practical, and without prejudice to arrangements for FEC member nations in accordance with the principles established in "Access to Japanese Technical and Scientific Information in Japan", approved by the Far Eastern Commission on 24 June 1948 and forwarded to the Supreme Commander on 1 July 1948, permit investigation of Japanese technical processes by non-FEC countries at war with Japan subsequent to 7 December 1941. Any technical or scientific information thus obtained should be promptly and fully disclosed to SCAP. Such information should be disseminated by SCAP in response to specific requests. 2. Technical or scientific information disclosed to SCAP in accordance with paragraph 2 of "Access to Japanese Technical and Scientific Information in Japan" should upon specific request, be made available to non-FEC countries at war with Japan subsequent to 7 December 1941. For more comprehensive treatment of this subject, including documents, see Korea's Independence, Department of State publication 2933, Far Eastern Series 18; Korea's Independence: Current Developments, Office of Public Affairs, Department of State, March 1948. The latter publication contains a Chronology of Events, December 1943 to February 2, 1948. Department of State Bulletin, September 23, 1945, p. 435. See (a) Cairo Declaration of December 1, 1943, (b) Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, and (c) the Soviet-Anglo-American Communiqué of December 27, 1945 (Establishment of the Joint U. S.-U. S. S. R. Commission) printed under I. Wartime Documents, (a) and (b), and II. Post-War Conferences (c). people and of our occupying forces only because they are deemed essential by reason of their technical qualifications. In this moment of liberation we are mindful of the difficult tasks which lie ahead. The building of a great nation has now begun with the assistance of the United States, China, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, who are agreed that Korea shall become free and independent. The assumption by the Koreans themselves of the responsibilities and functions of a free and independent nation and the elimination of all vestiges of Japanese control over Korean economic and political life will of necessity require time and patience. The goal is in view, but its speedy attainment will require the joint efforts of the Korean people and of the Allies. The American people rejoice in the liberation of Korea as the Taegook-kee, the ancient flag of Korea, waves again in the Land of the Morning Calm. 115. MEETINGS OF JOINT COMMISSION FOR KOREA, MAY 21-OCTOBER 18, 1947 1 United States and Soviet Views on Consultative Groups The U. S.-Soviet Joint Commission held its forty-second meeting, 1330, 14 July 1947, Duk Soo Palace, Seoul, Korea. General Brown was chairman. The Joint Commission has continued the discussion of a disagreement, which arose in the thirty-seventh meeting and extended through to the forty-second meeting, on the list of parties and organizations to be invited for initial consultation. The basic issues involved in this disagreement are as follows: I. Soviet Delegation's general position: 1. That parties and organizations falling within the following categories should not be included in the list for initial consultation, specifically: A. Those not classified by them as social organizations, and B. Those which it contends do not intend to support fully the Moscow decision, especially members of the anti-trusteeship committee and similar organizations. I. American Delegation's general position: 1. That Soviet Delegation's proposals are contrary to: A. Paragraph 1 of the three principles of the Foreign Ministers upon which agreement for reconvention to the Joint Commission was reached: "signing the declaration in communiqué number 5 will be accepted as declaration of good faith with respect to upholding fully the Moscow decision and will make the signatory party or organization eligible for initial consultation." B. Paragraph 5, Joint Commission decision published in communique Number 11, mutually agreed to and signed by the Chief Commissioner of each delegation: "subcommission Number 1, upon receiving the applications for consultation, 1 Department of State Bulletin, August 10, 1947, pp. 294-297. shall compile a list of all democratic parties and social organizations and their designated representatives of North and South Korea which have signed the declaration * * *"" II. The Soviet Delegation's specific contentions are: 1. That industrial, mercantile and producers organizations, such as Chambers of Commerce, Industrial Medical Institute, Buddhist Research Institute, Accountants Society and societies organized for the study of politics and economics, are not in fact social organizations as the word "social" is used in the Moscow decision. 2. A party or organization local in character which has no central zonal office is not eligible for consultation. 3. The good faith of a party or organization which signs the declaration and applies for consultation, and thus agrees to uphold the Moscow decision, is challenged by the Soviet Delegation if such party or organization continues membership in the anti-trusteeship committee or a similar organization. Such party or organization is acceptable for consultation only if it publicly withdraws from membership in the anti-trusteeship committee or similar organization. 4. The fact that a party is eligible for consultation under the agreement of the Ministers, as published in Joint Commission decision, does not mean that it must be admitted for consultation by the Joint Commission. 5. In order for a party to be placed on the list for consultation, it must be acceptable to both Delegations. II. The American Delegation's specific contentions are: 1. A. The Moscow decision does not define the term "social organization". B. The Soviet Delegation refused requests of the American Delegation to define the terms in the Joint Commission decision. C. The American Delegation served notice on the Soviet Delegation prior to final decision that after joint approval of the Joint Commission, decision No. 12, the American Delegation would not agree to amendment or change in the decision as finally agreed upon. Therefore, the term "social organization" must be interpreted as defined in the dictionaries of the world. 2. District and other purely local organizations are not barred by a provision of the Moscow Agreement, the Marshall-Molotov Agreement or Joint Commission decision. In order to eliminate small organizations, the American Delegation several times offered to limit oral consultation to parties and organizations with membership in excess of 1,000 or any other reasonable figure proposed by the Soviet Delegation. This proposal, however, has not been accepted by the Soviet Delegation. 3. A. Parties which are members of the antitrusteeship committee and similar organizations are clearly eligible for initial consultation under the Marshall-Molotov Agreement if they have applied for consultation and signed the required declaration. B. They remain eligible unless and until they are by mutual agreement excluded after indictment as provided by Paragraph 3 of the agreement reached by the Foreign Ministers-namely, "individuals, parties and social organizations invited for consulta tion with the Joint Commission should not, after signing the declaration contained in communique Number 5 foment or instigate active opposition to the work of the Joint Commission or to either of the Allied powers or to the fulfillment of the Moscow decision. Those individuals, parties and social organizations which, after signing the declaration contained in communique Number 5, do foment or instigate active opposition to the work of the Joint Commission or to either of the Allied powers or to the fulfillment of the Moscow decision, shall be excluded from further consultation with the Joint Commission. The decision excluding such individuals, parties and social organizations shall be by agreement of the Joint Commission.' 4. The arbitrary line of distinction drawn by the Soviet Delegation between "eligibility for consultation" and "admission for consultation" nullifies the agreements reached by the two Ministers (quoted in 1. A. above) and by the Joint Commission. 5. The first paragraph of the agreement accepted by Mr. Molotov and rewritten into Joint Commission decisions specifically states that all parties and social organizations which sign the application for consultation are eligible and must be accepted for consultation. The contention by the Soviet Delegation is an attempt to establish an arbitrary veto power over consultation, which is implicit in the method of work now desired by the Soviet Delegation. There is no provision in any of the agreements reached which provides such veto power. There are two basic issues involved in the differences outlined above: The first issue is whether one delegation may unilaterally exercise veto power and exclude from consultation any party or social organization that it does not approve. The Soviet Delegation wishes to exercise such veto power. The American Delegation maintains that this is an arbitrary position and is contrary to the agreement of the Foreign Ministers. Furthermore, it is impractical in application because it could be used to exclude parties and social organizations to such a degree that consultation would not represent a fair sample of Korean opinion. The U. S. position is that exclusion from consultation can only be by mutual agreement of both Delegations as specifically stated in the Marshall-Molotov letters. The U. S. Delegation has many times offered to review systematically the whole list of applicants and consider any and all objections by either Delegation to various parties and organizations in order to make a decision as to which should be excluded through mutual agreement. The Soviet Delegation has repeatedly refused such proposals. The second issue is in regard to membership of a party or organization in the so-called anti-trusteeship committee or similar organization. The Soviet Delegation has not brought specific charges against any one party that it has actually fomented or instigated active opposition to the Joint Commission or the Moscow decision after signing the declaration, but has arbitrarily accused all the member parties of bad faith and imply that they are guilty even before they have been indicted. The U. S. position is that no party or social organization can be assumed guilty of acting in bad faith until it has been indicted and proved guilty of actions which do in fact incite and foment active |