[Title] Remarks of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic's on the draft Japanese peace treaty

The Government of the U.S.S.R. received on March 29, 1951, from the Government of the United States of America a draft of a peace treaty with Japan. In connection with this, the Soviet Government considers it necessary to make the following remarks.

In spite of the fact that more than 5 years have already passed since the time of the termination of war with Japan, the question of a peaceful settlement for Japan remains unresolved. Such a situation has been created, first of all, as a result of the position taken by the Government of the U.S.A., which under various pretexts has postponed not only the conclusion but the very preparation of a peace treaty. In this connection, the Government of the U.S.A. has repeatedly rejected the proposals of the Soviet Government for the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan jointly with other Governments, as envisaged by the appropriate international agreements. As a result of this, the occupation of Japan by foreign troops has impermissibly dragged on.

1. The remarks of the Soviet Government, concern, first of all, the incorrect preparation of a peace treaty with Japan.

In the memorandum accompanying the American draft of a peace treaty with Japan, the Government of the U.S.A. declares that the draft referred to was drawn up after an exchange of opinions between representatives of the Government of the U.S.A. and representatives of the Governments of several other states, including the Soviet Union. It should be noted that this last is not true, since the Soviet Government as early as the beginning of March of this year published a statement concerning its refusal to carry on separate negotiations with representatives of the U.S.A. with regard to the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan. In this connection, the Soviet Government proceeded from the position that the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan cannot be the affair of any one Government or of a query conducted by it of the opinions of other interested Governments, but should be a joint affair of all these Governments, as is provided for by the appropriate international agreements. Nevertheless, the Government of the U.S.A. did not refrain from the separate preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, aiming at arrogating this right exclusively to itself, which is a violation of the obligations undertaken by it concerning the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan jointly with the U.S.S.R., China. and Great Britain, with the participation of other interested states.

In accordance with the Potsdam Agreement of August 2, 1945, a Council of Foreign Ministers of the five powers - U.S.A., U.S.S.R., China, Great Britain, and France - was established, in which connection it was directly stated in the Potsdam Agreement that the Council of Foreign Ministers was being created, in the first instance, for "preparatory work on peaceful settlement," and that in drawing up the corresponding peace treaties " the Council would consist of members representing those states which have signed the terms of capitulation dictated to that enemy state which the given task concerns." The peace treaties with Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland were prepared and concluded in conformity with this. That the drafting of a peace treaty with Japan has been laid upon the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., China and Great Britain, who, as is known, signed the Japanese surrender document, also flows from the Potsdam Agreement referred to. As early as 1947 the Soviet Government proposed calling a special session of the Council of Foreign Ministers composed of the representatives of China, U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and Great Britain in order to embark upon the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan. In this connection, it was envisaged that all states who participated with their armed forces in the war with Japan would be drawn into the preparatory work for drawing up a peace treaty with Japan. But this proposal as well as other repeatedly renewed efforts of the Soviet Government directed toward hastening the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan have furnished no positive results, since the Government of the U.S.A. ignores the necessity of calling a Council of Foreign Ministers for the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan as well as calling a peace conference for the consideration of this treaty.

The Soviet Government considers it necessary to mention particularly the impermissibility of excluding China from the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan. It is known that China was subjected during the course of many years to cruel aggression on the part of militaristic Japan, waged a protracted hard war against Japanese imperialism and bore the greatest sacrifices from the aggression of Japan. It is natural, therefore, that the Government of the Chirrese People's Republic, being the only legal representative of the Chinese people, has a special interest in the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan and in the establishment of lasting peace in the Far East. It is perfectly obvious that without the participation of the Chinese People's Republic in the work of preparing a peace treaty with Japan a real peaceful settlement in the Far East is not possible.

From this it is seen that the Government of the United States is endeavoring to exclude the U.S.S.R., the Chinese People's Republic and other countries from the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan and to take this matter exclusively into its own hands in order unilaterally to impose upon Japan through the procedure of a dictate conditions of this treaty satisfactory to the Government of the U.S.A., utilizing for this purpose the dependence of the present Government of Japan upon the American occupation authorities.

2. The remarks of the Soviet Government concern, secondly, the fact that the American draft of a peace treaty with Japan contains, from the point of view of the substance of the matter, several incorrect contentions incompatible with existing agreements between the powers.

In such known international documents as the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, and the Yalta Agreement of 1945 the Governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, China, and the U.S.S.R. took upon themselves definite obligations with relation to a future peace treaty with Japan.

In these documents the territorial borders of Japan were defined and it was pointed out that there should exist in Japan "a peacefully disposed and responsible government in conformity with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people," after which the occupation troops should be withdrawn from Japan.

In these documents, as well as in subsequent agreements between the powers, it is stated that there should in Japan "be eliminated all obstacles to the revival and straightening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people" and that broad possibilities for the development of the peaceful economy of the country should be opened up. Along with this it is stated there that it is necessary to finish with the authority and influence of the militarists and to accomplish the demilitarization of Japan.

The American draft of a peace treaty with Japan ignores in one degree or another these obligations of the powers which flow from the documents referred to above.

First of all, this must be said of territorial questions.

For example, in the Cairo Declaration of 1943 it is directly stated that the Island of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands should be returned to China. In this American draft it is stated only that Japan renounces all rights to Taiwan and Pescadores Islands, but nothing is said regarding the transfer of Taiwan and Pescadores Islands to China. From this the conclusion can be drawn that the draft leaves the present situation with Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands, which have actually been torn away from China, without change, in violation of the Cairo Agreement concerning the return of these islands to China.

The American draft provides, further, for taking the Ryukyu, Bonin, Rosario, Volcano, Parece Vela, and Marcus Islands out from under the sovereignty of Japan and transferring them under the administration of the U.S.A. under the pretext of establishing a trusteeship over them, allegedly on the part of the United Naitons Organization. Inasmuch, however, as the wresting of the islands named away from Japan is envisaged neither by agreement between the powers nor by decision of United Nations in the person of the Security Council, such wresting away does not have any justification.

Those deviations on military matters from the international agreements mentioned above which are contained in the American draft of a peace treaty with Japan possess even greater significance. It suffices to say that the American draft not only does not contain a guarantee agains the restoration of Japanese militarism but it general does not set forth any limitations with relation to the size of the armed forces in Japan.

It is known that in the peace treaty with Italy, which together with Japan was one of the primary aggressors in the Second World War, precise limitations on the proportions of the Italian army, the number of naval fleet personnel and also the size of the air forces are contained. Meanwhile, no limitations on the armed forces of Japan are contained in the American draft. Thus, Japan is placed in a privileged position in comparison with Italy, although there is no basis for this. From this it is seen that Japan itself will decide the matter of the size of its armed forces for so-called "self-defense." The Soviet Government considers that this is tantamount to allowing Japan to restore militarism. It is quite clear that such a position can in no way be reconciled with certain agreements of the powers concerning demilitarization of Japan.

Likewise the fact cannot be passed over that the American draft does not establish any period for the withdrawal of occupation troops from Japan and is directly designed to leave American occupation troops and military bases in Japan even after the conclusion of a peace treaty. Consequently, even after that "peaceful settlement" which the United States is preparing for Japan, the military occupation of Japan will not be discontinued and the United States of America will remain the real master in Japan.

As is known, in the peace treaty with Italy the withdrawal of occupation troops from Italy within a 3-months period after the conclusion of peace was provided for. Thus, Japan falls into worse position in comparison with Italy, and the U.S.A. receives unlimited right to continue the occupation of Japan after the signing of peace with Japan for an unlimited period. It is quite clear that all this can in no way be reconciled with the Potsdam Declaration of 1945.

It is necessary to add to this that already at the present time the Government of the U.S.A. utilizing the occupation of Japan by American troops for other purposes than were agreed among the states signing the Japanese surrender document. American occupation troops located on Japanese territory are utilizing the territory of Japan, its material and human resources for armed intervention in Korea, which is incompatible with international agreements according American troops the right of occupation in an only for the purposes of carrying out measures for the demilitarization and democratization of Japan.

Finally, the American draft ignores the necessity of removing limitations with respect to the development of the peaceful economy of Japan. It is quite clear that without the development of the peaceful economy of the country without the existence of normal trade with other countries it is not possible to create a reliable basis for the economic upsurge of Japan and growth in the welfare of the Japanese people.

The Soviet Government also has other remarks on the draft of the treaty which it intends to set forth at a meeting of the interested powers.

3. The Soviet Government, constantly insisting on a speedy conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan, considers that a peace treaty should be drawn up on the basis of international agreements which were concluded between the powers during the period of the Second World War, and the preparation of a draft treaty should be carried on jointly by representatives of the U.S.A., the Chinese People's Republic, U.S.S.R. and Great Britain with all the member states of the Far Eastern Commission being drawn into the matter.

In conformity with this, the Soviet Government proposes:

First. - To call in June or July of 1951 a session of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs composed of representatives of U.S.A., China, Great Britain and U.S.S.R. in order to embark upon the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan having in view bringing into the preparatory work for drawing up a peace treaty with Japan representatives of all states participating with their armed forces in the war with Japan, in order that a draft of a peace treaty may be submitted for the consideration of a peace conference.

Second. - To conduct the drafting of a peace treaty with Japan on the basis of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Yalta Agreement, governed by the following basic aims:

A. Japan should become a peace-loving, democratic, independent state.

B. Democratic rights should be guaranteed to the population of Japan and the existence of such organizations be they political, military, or of military character whose purpose is to deprive the people of their democratic rights, as was provided in the peace treaty with Italy, should not be allowed.

C. As a guarantee against the revival of Japanese militarism limitations should be established in the treaty on the size of Japanese armed forces in order that they may not exceed the requirements of self-defense, as was established in the peace treaty with Italy.

D. No limitations be put upon Japan in the matter of the development of her peaceful economy.

E. All limitations with respect to the trade of Japan with other states be removed.

Third. - To provide in the treaty that Japan will not enter any coalition directed against any of the states participating with their armed forces in the war against militaristic Japan.

Fourth. - To Specify precisely in the treaty that after the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan all occupation troops will be withdrawn from Japanese territory in the course of not more than 1 year and no foreign state will have troops or military bases in Japan.

Fifth. - To agree that the states signing the peace treaty with Japan will support the entry of Japan into the United Nations Organization.

Moscow, May 7, 1951.

DSB, N0.621, pp. 856-8.