1950 USA Answers to Questions Submitted by the Australian Government

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part Seven

To follow is a updated version of the former posting:

http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1950-usa-answers-to-australian.html

When the Australian Government asked about some questions concerning the Peace Treaty draft, Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs answered as follows. It clearly said that Takeshima is Japanese territory. It was written as "undated" but it was attached to a memorandum of October 26, so it was made around that time.

SECRET

[Washington]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
ARISING OUT OF THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES REGARDING A JAPANESE TREATY PREPARED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

1. “Parties.”

(a) Would Nationalist China be a party to be the
Treaty?

The current preliminary discussion of a treaty are
being conductedby the United
States with the National Government of China.
This follows from the fact that the National Government is the government which
the United States recognizes
and which continues to represent China on the Far Eastern Commission and the
Allied Council for Japan. Whether the National
Government or the Communist regime should be invited to sign the treaty for China is a question which the United
States will wish to discuss with the Australian
Government and other principally concerned governments.

(b) Would the Unites States proceed with a Treaty without the USSR?

This also is a matter upon which the Unites States will
wish to obtain the views of other nations befoe arriving at a final position.
The fact that the Unites States is again endeavoring to bring about a peace
settlement with Japan without
any indication that the USSR
has altered the procedural views which caused the failure of the previous
attempt stands in evidence, however, that the United States is prepared to proceed without the USSR if other interested nations are
similarly minded.

(c) What procedures are envisaged for a peace
conference?

It is not anticipated that firm procedural plans will
be developed at least until the completion of the current informal discussion in New York.
Conceivably the treaty negotiations might be conducted very largely through
diplomatic discussions. The question of whether there will be a peace conference
and, if so, when and where, has not yet been given more than the most
preliminary consideration.

2. “United Nations.”

(a) Does the principle that “membership by Japan would be contemplated”
imply a commitment on the part of the Allied Powers to sponsor or support Japan’s application for membership of
the United Nations?

Unites States thinking has been that Japan would
undertake in the treaty promptly to apply for membership in the United Nations
and that the Allied and Associated Powers which are members of the United
Nations would undertake to support its application.

3. “Territory.”

(a) More precise information concerning the disposition of former
Japanese territories, e.g., the Paracel, Volcano and Marcus and Izu Islands, is
required.

It is thought that the islands of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri, Tsushima, Takeshima, the Goto Archipelago, the northmost Ryukyus, and the Izus, all along recognized as Japanese, would be retained by Japan. The central and southern
Ryukyus, the Bonins, including Rosario Island, the Volcanos, Parece Vela and
Marcus would be placed under the trusteeship system of the United Nations with
the United States as the administering authority. Because of the considerable population of the Ryukyus and the virtual certainty that strategic trusteeships would be vetoed by the Soviet Union, the Unites States would seek ordibary trusteeships for these
islands. Japan would accept the United Nations Security Council action of April 2, 1947 extending the trusteeship system to the former Japanese Mandated Islands. The treaty would contain no reference to Pratas Reef and Island, over which China formally reasserted sovereignty in 1947, or to the Paracel Islands or Spratly Islands, title to which has been disputed between France and China. While Japan also claimed Spratly Island before the war its claim to this uninhabited spot is not believed important enough to warrant mention in the treaty. The Japanese Government never claimed any territories in the Antarctic.
It is not considered that Japan should be required in the treaty to renounce claims on behalf of Japan made by Japanese Antarctic expeditions.

3. “Security.”　(ABBREVIATED)

4. “Political and Commercial Arrangements.”
(ABBREVIATED)

5. “Claims.”

(a) in view of the use of the words “in general” in section 6(a), what
types of Japanese property would not be retained by the Allied
Powers?

The types of property not retained would be substantially the types exempted under paragraph 6 of Article 79 of the Italian Treaty. Examples are diplomatic and consular property, property of religious, charitable, cultural and educational institutions, and the property of Japanese nationals permitted to reside in the territory of one of the Allied and
Associated Powers.

6. “Disputes.”
(ABBREVIATED)

Supplementary Questions
(ABBREVIATED)

If you want to read all of the document, please visit here:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1950v06&isize=L&submit=Go+to+page&page=1327

This document can be seen in the "Foreign Relations of the United States", 1950, east Asia and Pacific Volume VI, pp 1327-1331.