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

214. Telegram From the Embassy in Japan to the Department of State¹

Tokyo, September 2, 1957–5 p.m.

626. For Secretary Robertson and Becker. Embtel 616.²

1. Foreign Ministry comments on draft in Deptel 501 follow and I hope I can have your reaction within next two or three days.

2. First para of our preamble overlooks fact that, in Article 5 of peace treaty, Japan has already accepted relevant obligations of UN Charter and that it is therefore inappropriate to refer to obligations which Japan would assume on becoming member of UN. Japanese therefore propose deletion of second and third sentences of this para and substitution of following: “it is the view of my government that the provisions of the Security Treaty and the Administrative Agreement were so drafted as to be fully compatible with the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter.” (Comment: I do not see that this causes us any difficulty and it seems well taken to me.)

3. In our Para B, language used to refer “their international disputes”, although taken from Charter (where it refers to all members) permits of interpretation in this context that it refers only to disputes between US and Japan and not to their respective disputes with third countries. Accordingly, Japanese propose to substitute “any international disputes in which they may be involved”, which wording, they say, is uniformly used in our other collective security treaties. FonOff added that this change involved no changing of meaning of Charter. (Comment: This seems a definite improvement and avoids undesirable interpretations.)

4. Japanese had three separate comments on our para C:

A. Since we are referring to Article 51 of Charter, Japanese say it is important to use language used in that article. Term “hostilities” is not found there and “armed attack” and “measures” are. (Comment: on basis of Department’s instruction I had stressed it important to stick closely to UN Charter language.)

B. As between Security Treaty and Administrative Agreement, provisions of former are controlling and nothing in Administrative Agreement can go beyond terms of treaty. Therefore in light of further consideration reference to Administrative Agreement is unnecessary and undesirable. (Comment: I assume we included reference to Administrative Agreement in our draft because Japanese did so in their original paper. Point referred to in first two sentences third para Embtel 616 was not mentioned in this conversation but it presumably still very much in their minds.)

C. Use of words “will act”, as they appear in our draft, and against general public background of public ignorance of just what is in Article 51, has undesirable appearance of operative articles of our other collective security agreements (e.g. Article IV of SEATO Treaty.)

(Comment:GOJ very sensitive to reaction or inferences drawn by Japanese public opinion on this.)

Accordingly, Japanese proposing following wording in place of our para C: “Any measures which may be taken in the event of any armed attack against Japan from without, as referred to in Article 1 of the Security Treaty, shall conform to the provisions of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

5. Japanese believe that following language would be more appropriate for closing para than that in Deptel 501: “I would appreciate it if your government would confirm the understanding of my government as stated above.”

6. Foreign Office would like exact text of our reply as soon as possible. Assume Department will send me such text concurrently with comments on above points. However, if this will cause delay prefer to have comments on Japanese proposals contained in this cable sent ahead of text our reply.

7. Will Department wish to make simultaneous release of exchange of notes in Washington? If so, would appreciate having as soon as possible text of any explanatory comments which Department would propose to make at time of release.

MacArthur

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/9–257. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to CINCPAC for POLAD and to COMUS Japan.
2. In telegram 616 from Tokyo, August 31, MacArthur reported that he had given Ohno the draft contained in Document 212 and supported it with the explanation in Document 211. MacArthur also described his preliminary discussion of the new draft with Ohno and another Foreign Office official. (Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/8–3157)