Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Far East, Volume VIII

740.00116 PW/3–146

Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs (Henderson) to the Secretary of State⁵⁴

urgent

[Washington,] March 1, 1946.

1. Background. Several weeks ago the Government of India asked that consideration be given to the appointment of an Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East at Tokyo. At that time the Indian Agent General at Washington was informed by the Department that it had been decided that the composition of the Tribunal should be limited to representation by the nine governments that had signed the Japanese surrender document and that, therefore, neither the Philippine Commonwealth nor the Government of India would be represented. India and the Philippines were, however, asked to name associate prosecutors for the trial of the Japanese war criminals.

2. Present Efforts of Indian Representative to Obtain Reconsideration by the Far Eastern Commission of the Above Decision. The Indian representative on the Far Eastern Commission, in compliance with a strong instruction from his Government, has placed this question on the agenda of the Commission, and it is now coming up for decision. We understand that the U.K. and New Zealand representatives are backing the Indian request. Since the International Military Tribunal is scheduled to initiate its activities within two or three weeks, this matter will have to be settled by the Commission at once.

3. Reasons Why Indian Judge Should be on the Tribunal.

a. India played an important and an active role in the war against Japan both in terms of supplies and military campaigns.

b. If the Tribunal is restricted to the presently proposed composition, only one Asiatic country, China, will be represented, and since the Tribunal will be trying Japanese war criminals it is believed that it would strengthen the Tribunal, in the eyes of peoples of South Asia, if at least one additional Asiatic nation is represented. Reports from India indicate that the virtually all-white character of the proposed Tribunal is looked upon most unfavorably by Indians.

c. Although the inclusion of an Indian representative might also lead to the inclusion of a Philippine judge, such further addition would give the Tribunal a composition of only 11 members as against nine already agreed to. We do not believe that from an operating point of view it would be much more difficult for eleven members to function than for nine.

d. Since this is a judicial matter, the question as to whether or not India is completely independent is irrelevant.

e. Although the Soviet Union may oppose it, it seems likely that the majority of the members of the Far Eastern Commission will favor India’s request. It would therefore be harmful to this country’s relations with India if the American representative should vote negatively or should endeavor behind the scenes to block Indian participation.

4. Recommendation. It is recommended that in view of the foregoing the American representative on the Far Eastern Commission⁵⁵ be instructed actively to support and vote for the Indian request for the appointment of an Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal to be established at Tokyo. If you concur you might get in touch at once with General McCoy since the matter is now before the Commission for decision.⁵⁶

Loy W. Henderson

54. Notation by the Secretary of State: “OK JFB”.
55. Maj. Gen. Frank R. McCoy, U.S. Army (retired).
56. On March 2 the Director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs (Vincent) proposed a revision of this recommendation to the effect that “we would not oppose” an Indian judge having membership on the court; the Secretary of State approved the change, and General McCoy was informed. On April 29 the Department was notified by the Indian Agent General that his Government had nominated R. M. Pal as judge on the Tribunal. A Filipino judge, Delfin Jaranilla, was also appointed. (740.00116 PW/3–146, 3–446, 4–2946)