Your D.552. See also 859 (F.E.C.171) from Washington; 129 from New
Zealand (131 to London).

Japanese external contacts and representation at international
conferences

Following are our views-
1. Japanese external contacts is a matter for decision at the
Peace settlement and meanwhile F.E.C. should deal only with
exceptional cases directly related to the occupation. Japanese
nationals should attend international conferences during
occupation period when necessity is shown and F.E.C. approves. We
support N.Z. paper FEC-236 in this. Japanese attending inter-governmental conferences in exceptional cases as above should be
only technicians and advisers and occupying control authorities
and not representatives. As we affirmed in Our 732(153 to London,
106 to New Zealand) it is Japanese interests which should be
represented and not the Japanese Government. Japanese interests
should be represented by officials of the Allied Control
authorities.

2. We think that the actual wording of New Zealand paper
concerning F.E.C. approval might result in a wider interpretation
than was intended and this might be provided against by the
addition of the words 'in each case'. As regards possible U.S. attitude that F.E.C. approval of each case would be inappropriate
or even unconstitutional (i.e. that decision on cases as distinct
from policy is a matter of implementation and therefore within
province of S.C.A.P. and not F.E.C.) answer is that under a policy
which contemplated exceptions, the exceptions become matters of
policy.

3. As regards non-governmental conferences we note that New
Zealand is prepared to make the same exception as for governmental
conferences. Our feeling about this is that while there might be
some grounds for permitting Japanese nationals, in exceptional
cases specifically approved by F.E.C., to attend inter-
governmental conferences as observers accompanying S.C.A.P. officials, we see little reasons for such exceptions in regard to
non-governmental conferences, and as far as we can see there would
be no such exceptions in fact. We would prefer indeed omission of
last 10 words of New Zealand paper.'

4. As regards the wider scope of Japanese external contacts
covered by the U.S. paper FEC-240 [2], we consider this as an
example of U.S. tendency to indulge the Japanese. We should desire
definite evidence of Japanese goodwill before allowing them once
again to move freely abroad on such pretexts as contributing
towards 'process of re-orientation'. We maintain the principle
that Japanese nationals should not be permitted to attend
international conferences (except as indicated above) nor to
interchange with other nationals outside Japan until after the
peace conference. Such contacts would undoubtedly be skilfully
used by the Japanese to strengthen their position at the Peace
Conference table.

5. We note with concern the proviso (in FEC-240) that S.C.A.P. may
authorise resumption of political and commercial interchange
between Japan and other countries. Because of our experience of
S.C.A.P.'s method of dealing unilaterally with matters vitally
affecting other Pacific powers, it seems to us that a loophole is
being deliberately left to enable the Japanese to have the same
advantages as Allied powers before the Allies have made peace with
them.

6. Cultural contacts are admittedly an important means of
promoting the Allied policy of democratisation of Japan, but such
contacts could be considerably increased by a more liberal U.S. policy in regard to admission of Allied nationals into Japan. We
have in mind for example the difficulty in obtaining clearances
and the small quota of businessmen allowed into Japan. It would be
more fitting if the U.S. had developed this means before being so
solicitous about letting Japanese out of Japan. Further, the
process of democratisation cannot bear fruit in any short period,
and little if anything will be lost by delaying Japanese
resumption of travel abroad until the peace conference decides the
question.

7. We strongly oppose U.S. paper and stress view that the matter
is a question for decision at the Peace Conference. [3]