FEC.222.

LEVEL OF JAPANESE INDUSTRY

Your telegram 962, 8th August. [1]

1. Your instructions have been noted. However, New Zealand Member
of F.E.C. now has instructions to accept virtually all of C2-242.

In view of this we should be glad of guidance.

2. Economic Committee has only now begun consideration of C2-242.

This Paper (sub-Committee recommendations on short-term Policy
towards Japanese Industry and Shipping, sent PL 505) was recently
reported to Economic Committee by a Special sub-Committee of which
Australia was a Member. Do your instructions envisage complete
discontinuance of consideration of this paper even at Committee
level. It would in the ordinary course be a long time before this
paper reached commission level. Committee consideration would
inevitably be protracted, almost certainly beyond date anticipated
for Peace Conference. In these circumstances Committee discussions
might be useful contribution to preparations for Peace Conference.

This attitude to continued consideration could if desired be
stated and statement could also explicitly avoid any implication
of association of F.E.C. as such in Peace Settlement arrangements.

By recognising reality that F.E.C. will shortly be superseded as
centre of policy decisions such a statement would help to foster
feeling that Far Eastern Commission proper should not take any
further decisions on major issues. This procedure would
nevertheless avoid open repudiation of a body in which Australia
has earned prominent position of leadership in Pacific questions.

3. We of course agree that 'primary principle to be considered is
that security and economic well being of Japan is subordinate to
this'. However, without further guidance from you, it would be
difficult for following reasons for us to argue plausibly that
F.E.C. should discontinue consideration C2-242 on the grounds that
insufficient attention has been paid to security.

(A) Australia voted for F.E.C. 106/1 which limits Japan's standard
of living to the level of 1930-34.

(B) Australia has so far supported F.E.C. 084/19 (reduction of
Japanese industrial war potential). [2]

(C) A corollary to adoption of F.E.C. 106/1 and F.E.C. 084/19,
paragraphs 5(A) and (B) and 9(B) is that F.E.C. shall prepare a
short-term level of industry paper in respect of certain specified
war-supporting industries. C2-242 is an attempt to apply the
criteria set forth in these papers.

(D) It would seem difficult to attack C2-242 on grounds that
insufficient attention has been paid to security without first
attacking principles in F.E.C. 106/1 and FEC.084/19.

4. We can consistently however criticise C2-242 (and incidentally
delay its in any case lengthy passage through Committee stage)
along following lines-
(A) While sub-Committee attempted to follow principles in F.E.C.

106/1 and F.E.C. 084/19, its conclusions were necessarily
influenced by United States proposal in FEC.218. [3] The fact that
so many of levels in FEC.218 were same as interim reparations
removal programme seems more than coincidental.

(B) Sub-Committee was obliged to depend on United States for the
basic information on which to calculate levels. Information
available was often meagre and arguments were often presented by
United States in such a fashion that sub-Committee with no other
source of information at its disposal could only reach logical
conclusions similar to United States levels proposed in F.E.C.

218. In any case, because of difficulties under which sub-
Committee operated, some of the figures proposed are mere guesses
and there is wide scope for error, and possibly security
considerations suffered.

(C) Criteria when broadly stated in general principle appeared
acceptable, but detailed application of these criteria involved in
producing C2-242 resulted in levels which are high. These levels
may not be politically acceptable (e.g. to Chinese) because the
figures may leave too little for reparations and would give Japan
industrial levels and economic standards higher than those of
other Far Eastern countries. (Reparations from current production
would, however, be a means of meeting these objections.)
(D) It would probably be many weeks before C2-242 could be
approved by Commission and because of imminence of the Peace
Conference, we could contend either-
(i) that it would be waste of effort on the part of F.E.C. to
continue further study of this paper and C2-242 should therefore
be filed as a preparatory study which might be useful to Member
Governments in connection with the Peace Conference,
(ii) as recommended above, that discussion should continue with a
view to clarifying issues for the benefit of F.E.C. Member
Governments as prospective parties to the Peace Settlement.

5. It should be borne in mind that United States is always in a
position to issue an interim directive. If discussion were
terminated at this stage there would be a risk that United States
will take this action and there is good reason to believe that
levels if fixed by United States would be at least as high as
those proposed in C2-242. Continuance of discussion, however,
would morally oblige United States to refrain from issuing interim
directive.

6. We have been under instructions to vote for FEC-084/19, which
will probably be voted on at the next F.E.C. Meeting. Therefore
glad of early urgent advice as to whether instructions in your 962
mean that we should not now vote for this Paper.