251. Telegram From the Consulate General at Naha to the Department of State1

92. HICOM in response to request by AP correspondent Gene Kramer, issued following statement here yesterday which appeared in local press today:

“That the US will find it necessary to continue the present status in the Ryukyus ‘as long as conditions of threat and tension exist in the Far East’ is national policy. Since these tensions are caused by the Communists, the fact that we will be here ‘indefinitely’ or ‘for the foreseeable future’ still is not understood by a great many people—particularly by those who do not wish to understand.

“I feel our fundamental need is for an authoritative statement of the minimum number of years during which this subject will not even be discussed. This must also be accompanied by a basic law under which we can operate. The combination of these actions would remove current doubts and confusion, make clear to Okinawans, and others, what their status is, and permit them to act and plan on the basis of a more certain future.”

During local inter-agency conference yesterday morning on preelection problems, HICOM said was considering some statement re duration US authority which might remove reversion issue from campaign but did not discuss substance or wording of statement. Understand text not sent DA.

If public comment necessary suggest statement be characterized as personal views HICOM issued response press inquiry.

[Page 549]

Chief Executive Jugo Thoma in interview with Kramer preceding day said would be desirable for US say specifically how long it intends hold Okinawa and that return to Japan is premature for at least 20 years because of “an anti-Japanese undercurrent” among the people and lagging rehabilitation. Text Thoma interview being air pouched.2

Deming
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794C.0221/12–1557. Confidential-Priority. Sent to Tokyo as telegram 119 and repeated to the Department of State as telegram 92, which is the source text.
  2. Not found in Department of State files.

    In a letter to Roderick dated December 17, commenting on Moore’s statement, Robertson concluded: “General Moore’s comments do not coincide with decisions which have been made interdepartmentally in Washington on this very important issue. Statements of this sort have repercussions on the foreign relations of the United States, particularly in relation to Japan. The concurrence of the interested agencies in Washington should clearly be sought before the public pronouncements are made.” (Department of State, Central Files, 794C.0221/12–1557)

    In telegram 1656 from Tokyo, December 20, MacArthur reported on a conversation with Fujiyama on December 19 in which the Foreign Minister had pointed out the difficulties created for the Japanese Government by Moore’s statement in view of the fact that Japan itself had previously wanted to set a terminal date for both the occupation of the Ryukyus and the duration of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. According to Fujiyama, Moore’s statement was being interpreted by many in Japan to mean that after expiration of the time limit suggested by Moore, reversion would be actively discussed. MacArthur commented that he believed Fujiyama had “seized on” Moore’s statement in order to reopen Kishi’s reversion proposals. The Ambassador concluded by suggesting that he be authorized to inform Fujiyama that there had been no change in U.S. policy. (Ibid., 794C.0221/12–2057) Indication of action on MacArthur’s proposal prior to the end of 1957 has not been found in Department of State files.