Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI, Part 1

694.001/3–1751: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald)

secret

Washington, March 29, 1951.

Topad 1408. Sebald from Dulles.¹ Reference Part II “Jap Government Views” transmitted Tokyo’s 1678 Mar 17,² following are informal and preliminary views of Defense Dept on Jap proposals regarding bi-lateral treaty. These comments have been given us informally and are not to be considered final JCS views but believed helpful for you to have them. In your discretion you may communicate them to Iguchi making clear they are tentative. We are inclined to concur in Defense views and Iguchi should not be encouraged to believe they will be substantially altered. Text³ follows:

“a. Japanese Proposal: Paragraph 1 of the Preamble

Insert the word ‘effective’ between the words ‘the’ and ‘means’. Recommend concurrence.

b. Japanese Proposal: Paragraph 3 of the Preamble

Change the phrase ‘the treaty of peace gives Japan the right to enter into collective self-defense arrangements’ to ‘the treaty of peace recognizes that Japan has the right to enter into collective self-defense arrangements’. Recommend concurrence.

c. Japanese Proposal: Paragraph 5 of the Preamble

Change the phrase ‘in the interest of peace and security’ to read ‘recognizing that an armed attack on Japan affects the peace and security of the Pacific area and of the U.S.’. Recommend non-concurrence.

Insertion of this phrase would imply an obligation on the part of the U.S. which would be unwise to put in writing until Japan is in a position to assume obligations of its own and to conclude a more definitive agreement than is represented by this Provisional Bilateral Treaty. It should be noted that the proposed wording is very similar to that used in Article 4 of the proposed Pacific Pact.⁴

d. Japanese Proposal:

Insert Paragraph 1, Chapter I of the Administrative Agreement in the Bilateral Treaty itself. Recommend non-concurrence.

There is considerable doubt among the legal experts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as to whether this phrase should be included in any agreement, even the Administrative Agreement. The ‘privileges and immunities which are normally accorded under international law to the forces of a nation stationed in a foreign country in peace time’ are apparently not uniform and differ materially according to circumstances. The question of privileges and immunities for U.S. forces stationed abroad has been the subject of much discussion between the State and Defense Departments in respect to the NATO Agreement⁵ and it is therefore considered that a broad statement of this kind in a treaty would only cause confusion.

e. Japanese Proposal:

Transfer the first sentence of Paragraph 1, Chapter II, Administrative Agreement, to the Bilateral Treaty. Recommend non-concurrence.

It is not believed wise to include in a formal treaty broad statements with regard to the administrative arrangements unless all of the Administrative Agreement is transferred to the treaty. Under the present arrangement, both the United States and Japan can propose administrative changes as circumstances warrant and such changes can be agreed to relatively easily.

In this particular instance it seems very unsound to include in the treaty a statement to the effect that the U.S. would pay all expenses except those paid by the Japanese, without spelling out in detail how those expenses would be divided.

f. Japanese Proposal:

Insert Paragraph 1, Chapter III of the Administrative Agreement in the Bilateral Treaty and change this paragraph so that it reads as follows: ‘In order to facilitate agreement concerning execution of this agreement there shall be established a committee to be composed of an equal number of representatives of the two countries. This committee shall come into being upon the date that this Administrative Agreement becomes effective. The committee shall be so organized that it may meet immediately at all times. The committee may establish such auxiliary organs as may be required.’

Here again, matters of administration are inserted into the treaty. Moreover, the powers of the committee have been increased so as to give them full control ‘concerning the execution of this agreement’ instead of being concerned with ‘sites, facilities, expenses, and status of garrison troops’. The Japanese attempted to secure this proposed wording while we were in Tokyo and we took a very strong stand against it. It is not believed sound to permit a local committee to have such broad powers. The ability of the U.S. Commander to carry out his mission under the terms of the Administrative Agreement would be greatly hampered since if this statement were placed in the treaty itself, it is conceivable that the committee would have the right to review almost all of his actions.”

[Dulles]
Acheson

1. Telegram drafted by Mr. Allison.
2. Not printed, but see editorial note, p. 930.
3. The mentioned text is an unsigned Defense Department memorandum of March 23 which was left at the State Department March 28 by Lt. Col. Jack J. Wagstaff, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G–3, U.S. Army. (Lot 54 D 423)
4. Apparent reference to Article IV of the draft Australia–New Zealand–United States security treaty of February 17. For text, see p. 172.
5. For text of the North Atlantic Treaty signed at Washington, April 4, 1949, see. TIAS No. 1964 or 63 Stat. (pt. 2) 2241.