§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
§ 3.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)I welcome this opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the issue on Japan. When I balloted for the Adjournment, I did not think it would come in the same week as the Debate on the Gracious Speech, but, nevertheless, I shall have an opportunity of getting at least some answers from the Front Bench to questions in which I think all sides of this House are interested. The Opposition, having cast their bread on the waters of steel in the hope that it will return as wedding cake, will now, I believe, agree with me that on both sides of the House, whatever our political differences, it is essential that the paucity of information so far as the Pacific basin and Japan is concerned should he eliminated.
We are now in the fourth year of the occupation of Japan. We see a Japan with a production level 40 per cent. that of the 1934 period. We see a Japan with a fifteenfold note circulation, a Japan that had 16 million yen in circulation in 1946 and with a circulation today. I 477 am informed in the "Far Eastern Economist"——
§ It being Four o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
Mr. Davies—of 240 billion yen. Trade in Japan, irrespective of monetary statistics, which at this moment represent very little indeed because of the terrible inflation, so far as volume is concerned, is only 20 per cent. compared with the prewar volume. We see Japan with a lopsided trade. So far as imports are concerned, 90 per cent. of the trade is with the United States. Yet Japan can export only 4 per cent. to pay for these imports. We on this side of the House do not stand for a harsh peace. I do not think any thinking nation stands for a harsh peace, and I am certain that Russia does not stand for a harsh peace with Japan.
Some of us believe that the basic administrative theory for Japan has been abandoned. I believe that the Americans have abandoned wholeheartedly their basic administrative theory towards Japan, which was based on the terms of surrender in 1945. I should like to ask the Foreign Office whether there is any justification for the abandonment of the old approach of the terms of surrender. General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander, according to "The Times" of 2nd April, 1948. has referred to Japan as the bastion of democracy. When I pick up the economic journal produced by the Economic Research Institute of Mitsubismi in Tokyo, I read, in the diary of events, that on 3rd June General MacArthur sent a message to the Japanese people on the first anniversary of Japan's new constitution saying that Japan had become an impregnable citadel of democracy.
If General MacArthur really believes that Japan has become an impregnable citadel of democracy, and if phrases of that kind can be uttered after 3½ years of occupation, then someone is doing some crooked thinking. I know that some Members came back to this Country and referred to Japan as being the scaffold of democracy. "Scaffolding" is a better term, because it has a double 478 meaning, and I would support that term. The way the Western world is neglecting what is taking place in Japan is not the way to build up Japan as a bastion of democracy. In fact, General Blarney of Australia, as reported in "The Times" of 8th May, 1948, has referred to Japan's rôle in the Pacific against Russia, and has said that historically Britain built up Japan to hold Russia in the Far East. He then added that he hoped history would repeat itself. I want to ask the Foreign Office whether they stand by this statement, which was, in fact, contradicted later on at Melbourne University by McMahon. I am convinced that the mass of the Australian people and those on the sidelines of Western imperialism in the Pacific do not look to Japan to play the same rôle in history that she has played in the past.
The Canberra Conference wanted a peace treaty by 1948. I would ask my hon. Friend how far we have proceeded towards the terms of such a peace treaty? Why is there this pall of silence about the peace treaty with Japan? We know there are differences of opinion in Australia and China about the actions of America and Britain in China. I do not believe that General Blarney represents the entire voice of Australia. As I asked earlier, do we still keep to the instrument of surrender of 2nd September, 1945, because, if so, in that instrument it was categorically laid down that there was to be no Navy, Army or Air Force for Japan? Have the American people and the representatives of America and Britain changed their minds on this matter? Let us have the truth, so we know exactly where we stand about the terms of surrender.
As to reparations, some hold one political view in this House and some hold another but we are all agreed that the House should have information on this question. Has any concrete conclusion been reached about reparations? I have given the Under-Secretary my figures, and my analysis shows that the Pauley recommendation for removal for reparations, in thousands of 1939 yen, was 2,465,920. The Pauley recommendation was followed by one from the Overseas Consultants, who reduced the figure to 1,648,156 yen. That was followed, two months later, by the famous recommendation of the Johnston Committee of 479 America. This Committee of businessmen suggested that Japanese reparations should be scaled down to 662,247 yen.
I will quote the "Far Eastern Survey," which cannot be accused of following the ideology of Russia or America. It is a paper which tries to give the facts and proper judgment about the Far East and the Pacific. In the issue of 23rd June this year they ask this question- about the Johnston Committee: How is it that a group of businessmen without a staff of engineers, in a three weeks' survey, which included travel time to and from the Far East and a diversionary trip to Korea, could conclude that the primary war facilities available for reparations were only 40 per cent. of the total favoured by a group of engineers who spent five months on the study of this question?
Could it be said that the thinking of the Army in America, and the issue of strategy against Russia, is dominating and befogging the possibilities of building up peaceful co-operation with the peoples of the Pacific basin? We in Britain, too, have something to think about. In the summer of 1947, 64 million yards of rayon cloth were brought to Lancashire to be dyed and finished and re-exported to our Colonial markets. Not only is Japan to be the bastion of democracy, but it is suddenly going to be made the working shop of Asia. The London "Economist" of 12th July, 1947, made this comment, which is important for the British Parliament to remember:
Nor do the countries which suffered most from Japan's pre-war trade expansion like the idea of its renewal as a subsidiary concern of the United States. There will indeed be plenty to talk about when it comes to peace making with Japan.We might note, in passing, the fears even of the Philippine Islands and of Australia at this regalvanising of the industrial activity of Japan. Nobody would accuse "The Economist" of being a "fellow traveller." When papers of high standing and business men of various political views are asking these questions about the re-energising of Japan's industry at a rate which is unfair to China and Australia, it is time something was done.If America and Britain have capital investment equipment, I ask what country deserves some of that equipment more than China, which has been raped by 480 Japan for 20 to 30 years, or more than the countries in the Pacific basin whose economy was destroyed by the Japanese. In building up the industrial areas of the Pacific area, no one wants a harsh and cruel peace for the Japanese people. We want a levelling up and even development of the economies of the Pacific basin. We are creating a problem for the next 20 years in Japan if we too rapidly industrialise her at the behest of America at the present moment.
I should like to refer to no less honourable a journal than "Great Britain and the East." We get leading articles in this journal openly saying that America is turning a blind eye to the Koighi Seko. These business families have concentrated in their hands the capital development of Japan and they did not have the same kind of historical economic development of industry as we had in the Industrial Revolution here. They overgrew like huge trees the whole economy of Japan, with the result that small industrial enterprises perished under that old-fashioned enterprise that we hear so much about in the nineteenth century. Those monopolies strangled the life of Japan and yet a blind eye is turned on them at the present moment or the grounds that we cannot find the experts to run these industries.
I should like to know why this House of Commons had not the same information at its disposal as the United States Congress. I search the libraries to try to find information about Japan, but how many Members of this Parliament have had an opportunity of reading the document about the Zuzuki Cabinet and the indictment that was made of it, to the effect that a subcommittee had concealed materials worth millions and millions of yen, including raw materials of the iron and steel industry, which were hidden by the Zuzuki Cabinet just a week or two before the surrender. I believe that this House should be as well informed about Japan as the Congress of the United States of America, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will see that his Department makes available in our Library these special reports when they come through.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State why is it that there is no policy at all in regard to 481 Manchuria, which is the Ruhr of the Far East. Anyone who takes an interest in the social problems of the Far East knows that before this war there was a paucity of information about development in Manchuria. The paucity of information about the development of Manchuria—the relationship of the Ruhr of the Far East to the Pacific area —really is amazing so far as we in this House are concerned.
Do not let us forget, therefore, the misery and the devastation caused by Japan to her neighbours over the past 20 years. While we do not want a bitter peace treaty, Japan should make some recompense, and I reiterate that any industrial output above a certain level should go to China and South East Asia to lift up their economies.
I am not looking for a cheap trip—I have never had one from this House—but I appeal to the Under-Secretary to get his Department to organise a fact-finding commission of Members of this House, in the same way as Congress sent a fact-finding commission to the Far East, and that a report should be made by those Members of Parliament, on all sides of the House, and be placed at our disposal. It is time that we had the opportunity of our own Members of Parliament going to Japan and of setting up a fact-finding commission of our own.
Some of our businessmen are worried about the possibility of textile and pottery competition. My constituency contains both these industries. Let me refer to Sir Raymond Streat, whose opinion is one which is listened to, who in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in April, 1948, said he believed that world textile development would shift to Japan. I see a danger to pottery, and unless in our peace treaty we can guarantee trade union conditions—conditions of labour and social welfare—somewhere on a par with those of the Western world, then no prayers, no pious amendments, no international conferences will once again prevent the dumping of Japanese textiles and Japanese pottery on the economies of Europe and the exporting via Japan of the U.S.A.'s unemployment problem. So long as our foreign policy in the Pacific basin is unpredictable—and I believe, in all sincerity, that it is, although I do not want to score any cheap points —so long will our economic policy also 482 be unpredictable. The United Kingdom, Australia and South-East Asia are clamouring for a lead to he taken in the Pacific.
I would like to suggest that, as a constructive approach, our policy in the Pacific should have regard to the Pacific basin in its entirety. Have we, for instance, with America and the Great Powers, a policy of sane redistribution of the Pacific? Have we a policy of emigration? We may not like the Japanese, neither may the Russians nor the Americans, but the main fact is that the problem of the overwhelming pressure of population will face the next two decades and, unless we can find some policy of sane redistribution of population in the Pacific area, then, once again, we shall be creating an area compared with which the possibilities of clashes in Germany will be as nothing. There are other things to be afraid of which are much more powerful than Communism. I have heard all the cheap stories about the danger of Communism after the 1914–18 war. Hon. Members should read some of the books, like that of F. L. Allen, by whom it was said in "Only Yesterday" that America was expecting to find a Communist under every dining-room table.
From my slight experience in the Far East I believe that, unless the white man gets a sane policy in relation to the coloured races of the world, we may arouse a world racial issue that will sweep aside this petty issue of Communism and capitalism. And all this may be swept up, too, through the unpredictable foreign policy of the Great Powers in this area.
For these reasons, I ask whether we are trying to work out a policy of the redistribution of population and balanced industrialization, and what is our policy of rural reform? Here Japan taught us something. Japan took the small dynamo, the motor car, the truck, and the small engine to the peasant cottage. Have the Great Powers worked out a policy copying some of that excellent example given in Japanese industrial development? I believe our policy will lead ultimately to complete misunderstanding of our relationship in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Have we a clear understanding with the Commonwealth of Nations and the Colonial Dependencies in South-East Asia about the development of the Pacific area? I believe that is 483 essential to the health of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth of Nations has a contribution to make, as I saw last week in the meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, but that contribution can be partially destroyed unless we come out now in a forthright manner with some clear policy on Japan. That is why I deprecate the fact that there is no reference to the Pacific, no reference to Japan and no reference to the entire Far East in the Gracious Speech.
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew)Perhaps I may begin, in the short time at my disposal, by trying to answer the question of information to Members of Parliament from the Government, which was raised in several parts of my hon. Friend's speech. Frankly, I do not understand his criticism that information on this subject is in any way denied to Members of Parliament by the Government. On the contrary, I should say that in this respect we had been most forthcoming and as helpful as we could be to Members. As my hon. Friend knows, two delegations of Members of Parliament have visited Japan quite recently at Government expense. As I am sure they themselves would agree, they were given every facility for seeing whatever was possible in Japan. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that what each of these delegations did was very much what the fact finding commission recommended by my hon. Friend is supposed to do, if I understand him aright. The delegation went there; it investigated many parts of life in Japan today; it came back, and it reported very fully to Members of the Government and to the House of Commons. Furthermore, in the Library of the House of Commons at this moment are lists and files of the policy decisions of the Far Eastern Commission, and of the minutes of the Allied Council.
My hon. Friend tied me down to one particular piece of information which he wanted. He wanted information about the Illegal Transactions Investigation Committee; he specifically asked for that, and asked why Members of Parliament should not be allowed to know about this. In this connection he mentioned 484 the Zaibatsu family. But this information is at this moment in the Library of the House of Commons. If further information is required than is already in the Library——
§ Mr. Harold DaviesHow long has that information been in the Library?
§ Mr. MayhewA full summary is in the publication known as "Summation of Non-Military Activities in Japan," which is regularly placed in the House of Commons Library. If any further information is required my hon. Friend has only to ask me and I will give him every scrap of publishable information in that connection.
On the general subject, I re-affirm, as my hon. Friend wished me to, that the Government stand by the terms of surrender of the Potsdam Agreement. There has, in fact, never been any question about this at all. He asked me to give the assurance that we stand by the policy of no Army, Navy or Air Force for Japan. But why should I give this assurance? It has never been in question. Japan has been completely demilitarised, completely disarmed. My hon. Friend brought forward no evidence to suggest that there had been any change in this respect, and I do not feel called upon to re-affirm what is surely self-evident.
My hon. Friend made use of a very generalised opinion about Japan being built up against Soviet Russia, without, however, explaining very precisely what he meant, or bringing forward any particular concrete evidence. I suppose he does not mean that Japan is being rearmed. Certainly he has produced no evidence. It is inconceivable. What does he mean? Does he mean that Japanese industry is being re-activated? Certainly that is so. But industrial production at the moment is still far below 50 per cent. of the 1930–34 standard, which is the standard we are working on in the Far-Eastern Commission for a level of industry for Japan. We cannot be accused of building up Japan against Russia by providing extra re-activity. On the contrary, my hon. Friend would agree that any form of building up for democracy in the form of re-activation of industry which increases the economic prosperity is, in a sense, if you like, a measure of defence against the inroads of 485 Soviet Communism in almost any country in the world, let alone Japan. But to deny the right to Japan of economic and political recovery, because that is said to he building up against Russia, does not seem to me to be fair or logical.
Perhaps I may just say something about this level of industry question. My hon. Friend seemed to be involved in an inconsistency. He said from time to time that he did not want a harsh peace. But equally from time to time he said that Japanese industry was being entirely re-activated. The two things are clearly inconsistent. We say, and have always said, that we must have a level of industry in Japan which allows a reasonable standard of life and which allows reparations to be given to those who suffered from Japanese aggression. What those needs are has been defined by the Far-Eastern Commission as a level of industrial activity which will allow a standard of life approximating to that of 1930 to 1934. That does not mean the industrial level of 1930 to 1934, because, owing to the population increase since then and owing to the loss of overseas territory it will be necessary for Japan to have a level of industrial activity a good deal above that, in order to get a standard of life approximating to that period.
That is the general attitude of the Government to the subject. The working out in detail has been done, and a plan is before the Far Eastern Commission at the present time. The truth is that Japan has this choice: either to produce on a very much greater scale than she is now doing, or to rely on foreign aid. As I say, her production is now less than 50 per cent. of what it was in 1930 to 1934. It will not reach the standard required for five years, even at this rate of reactivation which my hon. Friend criticises. At the moment it is costing £100 million a year to the United States taxpayer, and it is only right that we should continue a policy of trading with the Japanese peace-time industries, 486 peaceful industries, until Japan can enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
On the subject of the treaty as a whole, again there is no strange pall of silence. It is true that progress has not been satisfactory—not by any means. It is true that we have waited too long already for a Japanese peace treaty, but there is no sinister or strange pall of silence. We agree for the following reasons, among many, that an early peace treaty is required. Without a peace treaty there will be no incentive for the Japanese to accept responsibility for their economic recovery. The presence of occupying forces and occupying administration acts as a cushion between the Japanese and the realities of the economic situation. We say that although the Japanese are, at the moment, very cooperative with the occupation authorities, it must be assumed, as the years goes by, if years do go by, that in the end they would become restive under foreign occupation. We say that the conclusion of a treaty is fully compatible with Japanese healthy growth along democratic lines.
Our attitude has not changed. Our Note which we sent in December last expressed, I think, a plain and practical point of view which my hon. Friend has not criticised. What he has not done is to tell the House what further steps he thinks that the Government should have taken, which they have not taken, with regard to this treaty. We admit that it is unsatisfactory that there is no treaty, but we claim that our record and the practical steps that we have taken have shown our anxiety for one. So, in default of any concrete suggestions from him as to what things we should have done to get the treaty, I do not feel that I have a case to answer for His Majesty's Government.
§ Question put, and agreed.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.