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

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

Tokyo, September 6, 1957—Noon.

700. Yesterday I conveyed to Ohno info contained Deptel 546² and he expressed deep appreciation for Dept’s speedy action.

Foreign Ministry today gave us following three questions on which they said they would appreciate having urgent clarification.

1) “Measures which may be taken under Article I” in our draft can, they say, refer only to measures taken by US since those are only type of measures referred to in Article I. Both our first draft (Deptel 501)³ and their redraft were so worded as to comprehend measures by Japan as well as by US. Their wording accomplishes this by having reference to Article I tied to “armed attack against Japan” instead of to “measures”. Japanese ask whether our intent is to refer only to measures by US.

2) Second question relates to use of term “collective self-defense”. Use of armed forces under UN Charter must be justified either as individual self-defense or as collective self-defense. If US forces are used in defense of Japan, in association with Japanese forces, would we, Foreign Ministry asks, consider such use as exercise of right of collective self-defense of US, in meaning ascribed by US to that term in its mutual security arrangements with other countries? Security Treaty deliberately did not contain any obligation by US. It simply said our forces “may be utilized”, nor did Japan make any commitment in relations to defense of US. Ministry asks whether we intend to give this exchange of notes implication of mutual security obligations which are in our mutual security treaties with other countries. If so, Ministry said, such an interpretation would be unilateral US interpretation since GOJ could not legally, until constitution is revised, assume obligation to help defend US.

3) Third point relates to our omission of phrase “against Japan” after “armed attack”. Ministry asked if it was our intention to draw attention in exchange of notes to possibility of armed attack against areas other than Japan. This would be departure from our first draft and from their draft, both of which referred only to Japan or to Japan area. On this point, we said that language was intended to cover all situations which might arise under Article I of security treaty. Their response was that from domestic political point of view, it would do great damage to US-Japanese relations and their efforts to work more closely with US in defense matters to call attention at this time to possible unilateral use of US forces in Japan for “maintenance of international peace and security in Far East”.

Comment: I fully agree that we should not include language which would change nature of existing agreements with Japan. On other hand, it certainly does not serve our own interests to draw attention to possible unilateral use by US of its forces in Japan for purposes not directly related to defense of Japan area. Such action would create major problems for us in immediate future. Furthermore attack against Japan is at present only situation in which Japan’s forces would be involved and hence in which Japan would be reporting measures to UN.

Department will be able either to devise language which will meet points which Japanese have raised or to accept language proposed by Japanese for para C (as given in Embtel 626)⁴ which does not seem to alter existing agreements.

MacArthur

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/9–657. Confidential; Niact. Repeated to COMUS Japan and to CINCPAC for POLAD.
2. Document 215.
3. Document 212.
4. Document 214.