149. Telegram From the Embassy in Japan to the Department of State1
2711. Re Deptel 2576.2 I saw Ishii (acting Prime Minister and Foreign Minister) this afternoon and, after describing intense public and Congressional reaction and very serious implications of case on long term relations of two countries, I said I was instructed express our desire to withdraw notification resulting from agreement in Joint Committee and to propose instead that settlement be sought through diplomatic channels. I urged that GOJ not proceed further with judicial procedures in connection with proposed trial while discussions between two governments in process. I expressed appreciation of importance of problem to both governments but urged that it be settled in way which would prevent lasting damage, and compromise many of common objectives two governments were now seeking.
Ishii responded he was informed of repercussions in US but trusted that political importance of question in Japan likewise understood. Proposal would have very serious political repercussions particularly since Japanese thought it had been disposed of in Joint Committee which had reached decision only after long and careful discussion and consideration on both sides. He said Japanese felt Joint Committee decision had had ample justification. He said he could not give response now because of gravity of matter but said our proposal would be carefully studied and he would let me know when he had a reply.
Ishii asked whether Washington had been kept fully informed of both sides of the case. He said he asked this because press accounts in US seemed to be distorted and one-sided and showed no awareness of what had actually happened. I said I understood FEC had been reporting main developments to Washington but that I would check.
As to press interest in our talk, it was agreed that we would say I had made courtesy call on newly appointed acting Foreign Minister and discussed one or two points in connection with Kishi visit. If asked whether we discussed Girard case, we would say that had been touched upon.
I did not make reference to possibility of immediate court-martial procedure. Neither FEC with whom we consulted nor Embassy understood reference to “prerogative” mentioned in reference telegram3 [Page 310] since at present stage of case, for US to proceed with court martial would apparently be clear contravention of Administrative Agreement and supporting documents. Another important reason was that such a proposal put forward at this time would, I feel sure, seem to Japanese to be entirely inconsistent with notion of settling question of jurisdiction through diplomatic channels, particularly when we ask them to take no further judicial steps while discussions between two governments in process. I should note that at this particular juncture sentence by US court-martial, even if possible under applicable agreements, would in our opinion have no effect on Japanese desire exercise jurisdiction this case.
Repeated information CINCFE by other means.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 711.511–Girard, William S./5–2257. Secret; Niact; Limit Distribution. Received at 7:05 a.m.↩
- See footnote 4, supra.↩
- In telegram 2576, the Department, after instructing MacArthur to point out that the United States considered agreements such as that worked out by the Joint Committee revocable until the individual was turned over for trial, stated: “Army desires proceed immediately with court martial in accordance with their prerogative. Inquire whether Japanese would find it useful for United States to proceed immediately with court martial while governmental discussions in process. Possibility exists that United States court martial under which minimum sentence would be three years might prove satisfactory to Japanese in this case.”↩