In regard to your request for a revision of the Department’s Draft
No. 4 of the treaty of peace,3 I understand that you are now in possession of the latest
treaty documents.
[Enclosure]
Memorandum
Page 1, Preamble—It is believed that the
State Department’s previously suggested Preamble is to be
preferred to that in the draft agreement, even with the changes
therein. If the State draft as a whole is unacceptable, it is
suggested that the following paragraph from that draft,
originally appearing in the agreement concluded with Great
Britain in 1941 regarding leased naval and air bases, be
inserted in the revised Defense Department draft as a new fourth
paragraph:
“And desiring that this Agreement shall be fulfilled in a spirit
of good neighbourliness between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of Japan, and that the
details of its practical application shall be arranged by
friendly cooperation;”4
[Page 802]
It will be necessary if the second paragraph of the Preamble and
paragraph 1 are to be consistent with the penultimate paragraph
of the chapter on security in the peace treaty that these
paragraphs be revised to provide that a superseding security
arrangement must be acceptable to all nations contributing to
the security forces in Japan, not, necessarily, to the United
States alone.5
Page 2 paragraph 5—It is assumed that the
reference to “security forces of the United States and those of
other signatories of the Treaty of Peace” is not intended to
include Japan, though Japan will of course be a signatory. It is
suggested that the word “Allied” be inserted before
“signatories”.6
Page 2, paragraphs 6 and 7—In the general
reorganization in Chapters II and III it would seem more logical
to place paragraphs 6 and 7, dealing with the initial, peacetime
disposition of our forces, ahead of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5,
dealing, except paragraph 5, with rights of disposition and
maneuver in time of hostilities or threatened hostilities.
Paragraph 8, dealing with the return of property used by our
forces and claims, would appear later in connection with
economic and housekeeping problems.7
Page 3, paragraph 8, second
sentence—Reading of this sentence seems to indicate the
need for substituting “such” for “private” and deleting “both
real and personal” in the eighth line from the end.7
Page 5, paragraph 3—It is believed that
the jurisdiction question can be more satisfactorily dealt with
solely on the basis of the categories of persons subject to U.S.
Service Courts and authorities, without reference to particular
areas in Japan under U.S. control. The following draft is
accordingly proposed in place of the present paragraph 13:7
- “13. The Service Courts and authorities of the Government
of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
any offenses which may be committed in Japan by members of
the United States security forces or by civilian personnel
attached to such forces and subject to military law. If
cases arise in which for special reasons the Service
authorities of the Government of the United States may
prefer not to exercise such jurisdiction the Government of
Japan upon being so notified shall be free to exercise
jurisdiction.”7
[Page 803]
Addition of the following might increase the acceptability of the
provision to the Japanese:
“Assurance is given that the Service courts and authorities
of the United States forces in Japan will be willing and
able to try and on conviction to punish all criminal
offenses which members of the United States forces may be
alleged on sufficient evidence to have committed in Japan,
and that the United States authorities will be willing in
principle to investigate and deal appropriately with any
alleged criminal offenses committed by such forces in Japan
which may be brought to their attention by the competent
authorities of Japan or which the United States authorities
may find have taken place.”8
Page 7, paragraph 18—It is suggested that
the words “in accordance with criteria or arrangements
heretofore followed and” be omitted. This phrase would seem
likely to lead to difficulties in connection with a contribution
of Japanese forces, and to be unnecessary for other forces while
the condition that the contribution must be “after agreement
with the United States Government” remains.9
Page 7, paragraph 19—It is noted that the
phrase “as determined by the United States”, giving the United
States the right to say when hostilities threaten and the U.S.
commander should therefore assume command of all forces in
Japan, has been deleted. It would seem important that this right
be clearly lodged in the United States, and that the phrase
should accordingly be retained.
The words “prior to the adoption by the United Nations or
otherwise of a security arrangement hereinbefore described,”
included in the present draft, seem unnecessary, considering
that paragraph 1 on page 2 prescribes the effective period of
the whole agreement.
The previous draft spoke of placing “all armed forces” in Japan
under the commander of the U.S. security forces in time of war.
This has been rephrased to read: “… all allied or associated
forces in Japan, the National Police Reserve, or any other
Japanese forces which may be lawfully utilized by the Japanese
Government for the defense of Japan …” The former, short phrase
would seem adequate, and would avoid the question of whether the
National Police Reserve is at present expressly authorized by
law for use against external aggression.10
