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

219. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Japan¹

Washington, September 7, 1957—1:46 p.m.

579. Ref. Embtel 700.²

1. Re argument in para 1 Reftel, Security Treaty, particularly when read together with implementing Administrative Agreement contemplates measures by Japan as well as by US. Article XXIV makes this explicit and Japanese argument set out in Embtel 626³ para 4B is to effect that Administrative Agreement cannot go beyond terms of Treaty. Tying reference to Article I to “armed attack against Japan” either means that Japan no longer agrees to use of US forces in Japan to contribute in any way to “maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East” or that US contemplates use of its forces for this purpose not in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter. Either meaning wholly unacceptable. In answer to Japanese question our intent is to refer to any measures which can be taken under the Security Treaty and such measures include action by Japan as well as by US. In Japan’s own interest Japan may find it advisable to take action to maintain peace in Japanese area or Far East area even though hostilities do not involve attack upon Japan at moment.

2. With respect second question note that Security Treaty is “collective security” arrangement in light of third para of preamble and Article IV referring to “alternative individual or collective security dispositions” which contemplates “maintenance of international peace and security in the Japan area”. This is reinforced by Article XXIV of Administrative Agreement contemplating “joint measures for the defense of” the Japan area. Measures taken by Japan to these ends regarded here as measures of “collective self defense” in no way inconsistent with Japanese constitution. Moreover Japan by joining UN recognized right of collective self defense for itself and others.

3. With respect third point you were correct in noting language was intended to cover all situations which might arise under Article I of Security Treaty and while we have no desire to embarrass GOJ from domestic political point of view, we cannot agree to language which would imply Japan unprepared to carry out Security Treaty as written or that US would take measures under Security Treaty inconsistent with its obligations under Article 51 of Charter. Also do not desire Japanese people to be misinformed as to scope of Japanese obligations already undertaken as this might hamper development of spirit of international cooperation.

4. Suggest as revision which would eliminate all foregoing questions, and should be consistent with Japanese political situation, the following wording for para C of note: “C. Measures which may be taken under the Security Treaty, including those which may be taken under the Administrative Agreement entered into thereunder, shall conform to the applicable provisions of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” If Japanese inquire why “applicable” included you may note that some things covered by Treaty and Agreement unrelated to Article 51 and that measures may be taken under Article XXIV of the Administrative Agreement in anticipation of hostilities which need not be reported to the United Nations under Article 51 which are applicable only “if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/9–657. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Becker, cleared in NA and FE, and approved by Becker. Repeated to COMUS Japan and to CINCPAC for POLAD.
2. Supra.
3. Document 214.