Evening star., 1951-09-02

ANDREI A. GROMYKO.
Does he 1Uant to kill it?
mon danger together. Yesterday, in
San Francisco, three-way agree
ment of this nature was signed with
Australia and New Zealand.
The United States is not ex-
pected forever to bear the burden
of protecting Japan in the Pacific.
Just as the Philippines, Australia
and New Zealand are to do their
part in defending themselves, so
the treaty recognizes Japan's right,
as sovereign nation, to defend it
Self-which means to build up it's
own armed forces. No treaty ever
devised has prevented any nation
which wanted to from doing that
anyway. At the same time, the
security provisions of the San Fran
cisco pact pledge Japan to refrain
from all use of aggressive force, and
to stand behind the u N. in it's
efforts to secure the peace.
Reporotions Problem
The treaty we are about to sign
recognizes that Japan, as a matter
of principle, should pay repara-
tionS to the countries she made
suffer in World War II. But it also
recognizes that, in fact, she cannot.
1t is estimated that if all nations
were allowed to collect the sums
Japan could reasonably be con-
Sidered to owe them, the total
would be more than S100 billion.
In her postwar condition, Japan
would be completely crushed under
such a load, or even a fraction
of it..
The treaty provides that nations
which were occupied by Japan and
damaged by her forces may, if they
wish, negotiate agreements by
which Japan can, so to speak, pay
part of what she owes them in
AoHO1 4dO41CL J1ldII Ill OuUSIdIlCOs
They may, in other words, send raw
materials to the islands, which will
be manufactured or proceSSed by
the japanese and returned as fin
iShed goods. This is the only SUBJ
Stantial form of reparation pro-
vided for in the settlement.
The United States has para
doxically selfish" interest in this
reparationS section of the treaty.
Since the end of the war we have
pumped about So billion into Ja-
pan to support the japanese econ
omy. Japan was that much short
of her minimum economic require
mentS for survival-quite apart
from any question of reparationS.
We do not believe we should be
asked to pay Japan'S reparations
for her, even indirectly.
These are the major considera-
tions covered in the Japanese
treaty, except for the territorial
settlement, which is explained in
the map above. The working out
of commercial arrangements be-
tween Japan and the rest Of the
world, including the long -vexing
problem of regulating Japan's high
seas fishing activity, is left TO fu-
ture negotiation. The treaty be-
comes effective when it is ratified
by a majority, plus ourselves, of
the IA nations first consulted about
it last November-minus NATIONAL
iSt China, which, like it's Commu-
mist counterpart, was not invited
to San Francisco. Later, Japan
may decide which China she wants
to sign with. She may also con-
clude treaties similar to this one
with any other nation not signing
at San Francisco-including India,
which has refused to attend this
conference.
After the treaty comes into ef-
feet, any disputes that may arise
as to its meaning are to be settled
by the International Court of
Justice.
Peace of Reconciliation
The State Department says the
San Francisco treaty provides for
a "peace of reconciliation" with
Japan. without doubt, this is the
literal truth. Never in history,
perhaps, have conquerors settled
with erstwhile aggressors on less
punitive, more humane terms.
Is this, as Russia may claim this
week, really a treaty of offensive
alliance among a bunch of i'm
perialist gangsters? Russia knows
better. It is, to be sure, in effect
treaty of alliance-in the sense
that it seeks to bring Japan back
into the family of free nations.
It seeks to protect Japan from the
clutches of the Communist octop IS,
oozing it's tentacles across the globe.
In the grip of those tentacles,
Japan could be more dangerous
than she has ever been before. But
if she walks again with dignity, in