STRIPPING JAPAN

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 April 1946, Page 5

STRIPPING JAPAN

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND DEMAND REPARATIONSIN PACIFIC NEW YORK, April 18. “Evidence is piling up that the Far Eastern Commission has thrown out the entire reparations programme of President Truman’s special ambassa-r dor (Mr. E. S. Pauley) and is taking the matter up from the beginning,” says the Tokio correspondent of the New York Times. “This, if true, will mean that Japanese manufacturing industry, which is currently, producing about one-tenth of its pre-war volume, is facing another long period of unproductive uncertainty. “Occupation officials, while awaiting final permission from Washington, have been endeavouring to save time by planning along the lines of Mr. Pauley’s report and ear-marking plants for reparations. Now, apparently because the Australians and New Zealanders, and the Chinese to a somewhat lesser extent, are not satisfied with anything less than the complete stripping of Japan to economic impotence, the whole programme is being reconsidered. “Mr. Pauley, on December 6, recommended that Japan should be stripped of all assets abroad, virtually all her chemical, steel, and shipbuilding capacity, and half her electric power and machine tool industries.” The correspondent adds that Japan at present is in bad economic shape and the current rate of production tends to increase the gap between supply and deinand, thus heightening inflation.

MACARTHUR REBUFFS ALLIED COUNCIL x . NEW YORK, April 17. The Allied Council for Japan, at its second meeting, received a letter from General MacArthur rejecting virtually all the requests made by the council a fortnight ago and asserting that compliance was impracticable or would interfere seriously with the work of occupation. The Tokio correspondent of the New York Times says that the council had asked General MacArthur to provide copies of every order to the Japanese and every reply, also all data on decisions since the occupation began and all data on the Japanese military potential. General MacArthur replied that there were no facilities for preparing such a vast volume of papers, but monthly reports would be made available and specific data given when requested. Submission of Directions. General MacArthur also rejected a request to submit all directives for inspection by the council, seven days in advance of their being issued. He said that he would submit them 48 hours in advance.

He also rejected a request that Japanese ordinances be submitted to the council 10 days before promulgation. Replying to a Russian request for a new election if an undesirable Diet were chosen, General MacArthur wrote last week “that some successful candidates would be investigated further. It is essential that the Supreme Commander should avoid any action which might seem pressure for or against any particular party or group.” The correspondent says the rejecting of the requests has been underlined in General MacArthur’s statement to the opening meeting of the council, in which he served notice that he would run Japan and that the council’s functions were merely advisory. The Soviet delegate insisted on a seven-day period for directives and dictated a new request that directives should be made available. Sharp Reply to Russians.

Brigadier-General Courtney Whitney, who was representing General MacArthur at the council meeting, replied sharply to Russian questioning of the effectiveness of the Allied purge decrees. He said that the Japanese Government was complying with the purge directives as fast as was consistent with the occupation policies. However, zhe would supply the Russians with all the available information on the topic “if it takes all summer.” Referring to the Russian complaint that the democratisation of Japan was endangered, Brigadier-General Whitney feelingly replied: “He who fails to see in the Japanese election a demonstration of democracy on the march fails to understand the meaning of democracy or is blinded by prejudice.”