694.001/8–951: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald)
priority
Topad 220. For Sebald from Dulles. Reurtel 284, Aug 8.1 We do not find inconsistency between second para of Preamble and Art 5. Word “when” in Art 5 not directed to the date, which is indicated by Preamble, but to the procedure, namely deposit of instruments of ratification.
Believe “Security Treaty” now proper title. Authentic text being cabled.2
We are seeking to avoid any publication or leak of terms until at or about San Francisco Conf feeling that terms cld be misrepresented by Commie propaganda to detriment of fullest adherence to Peace Treaty. Pls do all possible to assure that result your end.
Reurtel 235, Aug 2.3 We assume Security Treaty wld be signed San Francisco immed fol signature Peace Treaty. [Dulles.]
-
In it the Mission had reported in part:
“FonOff Treaties Bureau suggest proposed Article 5 (Deptel 158, July 31) possibly inconsistent with para 2 preamble and recommends fol amendment last clause proposed Article 5: ‘and will come into force simultaneously with the coming into force of the treaty of peace between the United States and Japan. The instruments of ratification will be exchanged at Wash D.C.’.
“Bureau also inquires whether ‘security treaty’ now proper title in place ‘security agreement’” (694.001/8–851) For telegram 158, see footnote 1, p. 1232.
↩ - The text of the draft of July 31 was, cabled in telegram 229 to Tokyo, August 10, not printed. For the July 31 draft, see p. 1233.↩
- In this telegram the Mission had stated in part: “Also suggest Japanese Govt be apprised soonest plans for signing security treaty.” (694.001/8–251)↩