Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Japan, Volume XXIII, Part 1

115. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Sebald) to the Under Secretary of State (Hoover)¹

Washington, February 1, 1957.

SUBJECT

• Draft Progress Report on Japan (NSC 5516/1)

The Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) at its meeting on February 6 will consider the latest Progress Report on United States policy toward Japan, a copy of which is attached.²

The salient feature of the draft Progress Report is its thesis that Japanese-American relations have entered a period of adjustment and that greater mutuality in the relationship is required if the United States is to win and keep Japan as a firm ally in the Pacific. Japan’s improved economic situation, improved diplomatic position, and restoration of relations with the Soviet Union all tend to lessen Japan’s dependence upon the United States and to encourage more independence. As a consequence, Japan has entered a period in which it is now making decisions of lasting significance to the United States, both with respect to our defensive posture and to our position in the cold war with communism.

Various points of friction exist between Japan and the United States; these are mentioned in full in Section B and include such points as the Bonin Islands, the Ryukyu Islands, United States force levels in Japan, relations with Communist China and trade problems. If Japan is to make the type of decisions which will improve our global posture rather than weaken it, these frictions must be alleviated in the near future.

The Progress Report concludes that our basic policy is still sound but that there must be a greater application of the principle of mutuality if the basic assumption of our policy—Japanese alignment with the United States—is to be fully realized.

There are no areas of disagreement with other agencies represented in the OCB with respect to the paper. However, there are potential areas of disagreement with Defense with respect to the Bonin Islands and the Ryukyu Islands: Navy continues to press that United States security interests in the Pacific exclude the possibility of repatriating Bonin Islanders; Defense is not as conscious of nor responsive to the civil problems in the Ryukyus as State feels is necessary. With respect to trade problems, Commerce is not fully conscious of the implications and possible reaction of third countries in terms of restricting imports from Japan, with the attendant weakening of Japan’s needed economic strength.

The paper does not consider the question of future goals of American policy toward Japan. The Secretary himself has stated in discussions inside the Department that a reasonable goal for us is a mutual defense arrangement with Japan.

1. Source: Department of State, OCB Files: Lot 61 D 385, Japan. Secret. Drafted in NA.

2. Not found attached. A copy of the final version, dated Febuary 6, is ibid., S/S–NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351,NSC 5516 Series. In a February 6 memorandum to Robertson, which included notes on the discussion of the Progress Report at the OCB meeting, Arthur L. Richards, Operations Coordinator in U, indicated that revisions of the draft at the meeting were minor. (Ibid., 611.94/2–657) In his weekly report to Sherman Adams, February 11, Robert Cutler described the OCB meeting as follows:

   “The Progress Report on Japan provided an opportunity for a general review of U.S. relations with the Japanese. Ambassador–designate MacArthur was present for the meeting just prior to his departure for his new post. Principal concern in the Board’s discussion was the steady deterioration in U.S.-Japanese relations over the past year and steps which might be taken to improve this relationship.

   “One area of difficulty, future administration of the Ryukyu Islands, should be resolved before CINCFE is disestablished July 1. State and Defense will attempt to resolve their differences prior to that time; if not, the matter will be considered by the Board and possibly referred to the President.

   “The Board also agreed on the need for early settlement of U.S. claims growing out of assistance during the period of occupation (GARIOA settlement). There has been virtually no progress on this matter since it was taken up in the National Advisory Council along with the German settlement.” (Eisenhower Library, Staff Secretary Records)

   According to NSC Action No. 1683, the National Security Council at its meeting on March 14 “noted and discussed” the Progress Report. (Department of State, S/S–NSC (Miscellaneous) Files: Lot 66 D 95)