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

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

Tokyo, September 9, 1957—9 p.m.

723. Deptel 579.²

1. We gave new para C and Department’s comments to FonOff, carefully explaining rationale of collective security arrangements and consistency of “collective self-defense” concept with both Security Treaty and with Japanese UN membership.

2. FonOff points out that our new wording of para C has grammatical, and therefore legal, difficulty. Our language seems to mean that all measures taken under Article 1 of treaty are subject to some end (i.e. “applicable”) portion of Article 51 of Charter. What we mean to say, FonOff believes, is that some of measures which may be taken under Article I of Security Treaty are subject to all provisions of Article 51. FonOff foresees difficulty in explaining exact meaning of our new language of para C unless this question is clarified.

Although appreciating Department’s effort to meet their difficulties with our previous language, Japanese believe that our newest language, as it refers to “measures”, is too broad, since measures taken under Article I such as disposition of forces do not come within Article 51. Moreover, they say, general public, being unfamiliar with Charter, will not know what para C is about unless there is reference to “armed attack”.

4. In order avoid all these difficulties, and at same time give expression to substance of our proposal, they have now taken language of our second draft of para C (as given in Deptel 546)³ and they have deleted “under Article I of Security Treaty” as well as phrase “individual or collective”. (Notwithstanding explanations given them, FonOff is still concerned at possibility that inclusion of term “collective self-defense” will give rise to Diet questioning and debate as to whether GOJ has taken on new commitment. FonOff thinks government could handle this but prefers to avoid it if possible.) Their new proposal for para C thus reads “measures which may be taken in exercise of the right of self-defense against armed attack shall conform to the provisions of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

5. I think that, if we press them hard, Ministry will accept inclusion of “individual or collective self-defense” in their latest proposal in preceding sentence, provided we can meet point in para 2 above. On other hand, if Department believes latest Japanese formulation contained in para 4 above safeguards our interests, it would be very helpful to GOJ in their handling of problem and therefore also in our interest for UN to accept it.

6. Much appreciate rapid action which Department has been taking on each successive round of this exchange.

Passed COMUS Japan by other means.

MacArthur

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/9–957. Confidential; Niact. Repeated niact to CINCPAC for POLAD. Received at 8:38 a.m.
2. Supra.
3. Document 215.