Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Japan; Korea, Volume XVIII

60. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Japan⁰

Washington, May 15, 1959, 8:02 p.m.

1726. For MacArthur from Robertson. Secnogs 5, 6 and 7.¹

General Comments

We agree necessity for certain revisions in Administrative Agreement to make it politically acceptable in Japan. Such revisions are consistent with our interest in reducing to maximum extent possible areas of friction flowing from US base operations abroad and thereby strengthening acceptability of bases with host country. For these reasons we have accepted most of changes proposed by GOJ. In certain instances, however, we are proposing modifications in GOJ proposals which in our view meet Japanese requirements but may have less substantive effect on our position.

Following are our comments on proposed revisions, notes of understanding, and questions set forth in Secnogs 5, 6 and 7. We have taken into account CINCPAC comments in 101050Z.²

1. Title. “Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan.”

2. Preamble. Changes acceptable.

3. Article I.

(a) I(a) (Secnog 6). Note of understanding acceptable, with following changes.

Insert “, including leave orders,” after “travel orders.” Add additional sentence as follows: “It is further understood that members of crews of aircraft or members of crews of ships of the US armed forces entering Japan aboard such aircraft or ships are entering Japan under travel orders and shall not be required to be in possession of such orders.” This confirms existing practice.

I(b). Retain present language. Comment:Present Japanese language would not include under new Administrative Agreement certain categories of personnel who perform valuable and essential services to our services although not directly employed by them, such as Red Cross workers, USO personnel, etc. Our understanding is these categories treated in NATO area in effect as DOD employees. If this not acceptable to GOJ, GOJ language on this point agreeable providing there is separate side agreement covering above groups under Article 1(b).

4. Article II. (a) II, 1A. Japanese draft acceptable.

(b) II, 1, B. In final clause revise to read “shall be considered as facilities and areas agreed upon . . . etc.”³Comment:Deletion of word “the” between “considered as” and “facilities and areas” important to prevent any misunderstanding. Without deletion, para II, 1, B could be construed as limiting agreements through Joint Committee on facilities and areas to only those facilities which US is now using and thus exclude acquisition through Joint Committee of new facilities or areas.

(c) II, 4. Changes approved.

5. Article III. (a) Article III, 1. Comment:Prefer present language re first sentence to preclude any question arising in future that through deletion of some of present wording, substance of US power to act under this Article had been reduced. However, if Japanese insist agreeable to changing words “right, power and authority” to “rights” and words “establishment, use, operation, defense or control” to “establishment, operation, defense or control”, providing GOJ affirms that these terms contain all substantive meaning contained in present language. Desire retention of “establishment” to make clear US may construct or expand facilities.

Re rights outside facilities and areas (Secnog 7), prefer present language which not only covers rights of way but also provides access rights to air bases, control of air space, etc. To meet GOJ’s concern, we are agreeable to separate note of understanding that US will consult with GOJ when exercise of rights involves compensation by Japan to private landowners or other expenditures of GOJ funds.

(b) Article III, 2. Deletion of last sentence approved provided new language developed to retain concept for reasons set forth CINCPAC message.

6. Article V, 1 and 2. Changes acceptable. Word “into” should be inserted after “entry” in V, 1.

7. Article VIII. Changes acceptable.

8. Article IX, 1. (a) First sentence GOJ proposal should be revised as originally authorized or as follows: “The Government of Japan grants permission to the Government of the US to bring into Japan members of the US armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents.” Comment:Right should be granted to US and not to individuals. We opposed to inclusion of second sentence since similar provision not in NATO SOF and since it would establish precedent for other negotiations and base arrangements elsewhere. To meet GOJ’s concern, we are agreeable to side understanding as set forth Embtel 2369.⁴

(b) Article IX, 3(b) and 4. Japanese draft approved with changes proposed by CINCPAC.

(c) Article IX, 5. Language of Article III, para 5 of NATO SOF should be used with appropriate changes such as “Japan” for “receiving state” and “United States” for “sending state.” Reason: US cannot enforce removal of civilian component or dependents.

9. Article XI

(a) Article XI, 2. Desire retain present language for reasons set forth in CINCPAC message.

(b) Article XI, 2, 3(c), and 5. Question need for additional assurances in Japanese note in light of US commitments and obligations contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article XI which should be sufficient to satisfy Diet. Japanese proposal could be construed as implying failure by US to have lived up to these obligations in past. GOJ should be given copies of pertinent US regulations. However, if despite above argument GOJ insists on additional assurances, note of understanding approved with following changes:

(1) Article XI, 2. Agree to note of understanding (Secnog 6) although prefer following wording: “The US Government . . . to ensure that”; and “and to take all necessary measures to this end.” Comment:GOJ language implies US would not take “necessary measures” without specific undertaking to do so.

(2) Article XI, 3(c) (Secnog 6). Agree to note of understanding since it merely reiterates Administrative Agreement obligation. To reassure Diet further USFJ should provide GOJ with relevant regulations re control over imports entering through military post office.

(3) Article XI, 5 (Secnog 6). Proposed note of understanding be redrafted as follows: “The US armed forces will take every practicable measure to ensure that goods will not be imported into Japan by or for the members of the US armed forces, civilian component, or their dependents, the entry of which would be in violation of Japanese customs laws and regulations. The US armed forces will promptly notify the Japanese customs authorities whenever the entry of such goods is discovered.”

10. Article XII.

(a) Article XII, 1 (Secnogs 5 and 6)

(1) Additional sentence proposed by GOJ approved with insertion word “also” between “governments” and “be” in second sentence.

(2) Note of understanding approved with changes set forth in CINCPAC message. If reference to “continue” creates serious difficulties for GOJ, we will reconsider this point.

(b) Article XII, 5. Japanese proposal approved.

(c) Article XII, 6. Japanese proposal should be revised as follows: “In connection with the application of the preceding paragraph and paragraph 4 of Article XV, the Governments of Japan and the US will continue to cooperate with each other with a view to facilitating amicable adjustments of differences with individual workers arising out of work with US armed forces, including the organizations provided for in Article XV.”

11. Article XIII, 3. Intangible moveable property refers to stocks, bonds, checks, etc. and therefore reference should be retained.

12. Article XIV (Secnog 7). Desire retain Article XIV without abuse of privileges. We agreeable to limit provisions to contractors whose services essential. Article XIV should be revised as proposed by CINCPAC except that separate paragraph concerning decertification should be added at end of and as part of CINCPAC’s proposed new para 3. In addition, “Certification of such persons and their employees will be withdrawn by appropriate US authorities” should be substituted for “Such persons and their employees will be decertified by appropriate US authorities.” Rest of Article should be renumbered accordingly.

13. Article XV, 4. Japanese proposal acceptable.

14. Article XVII, 11. Japanese proposal acceptable.

15. Article XVIII. Our comments will follow by later message.

16. Article XXII. Have no objections to Japanese proposal if this does not affect status of reserve organizations in Japan.

17. Article XXIV. Yen contribution question still under consideration. Will send separate message.

18. Article XXV, 2(a). Substitute phrase “facilities and areas” for “facilities, areas”.

19. Article XXV 2(b). Approve deletion provision on yen contribution to US forces.⁵

20. Article XXVI. Retain present language. Substance of problem raised by CINCPAC covered in paragraph 23 below.

21. Article XXVII. Japanese draft approved.

22. Final clause. Signing by plenipotentiaries agreeable.

23. General wording changes (Secnog 5, paras 28 and 29) approved. However, references to “agreements between the two governments” and the like should be revised to “agreement between appropriate authorities of the two governments.” This will enable arrangements to be worked [out] at appropriate levels, diplomatic or technical, including Joint Committee. Article II, 4a should read “between the two governments through the Joint Committee.” This conforms to Article II, 1.

Defense concurs.

Dillon

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.94/4–3059. Confidential; Niact; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Sneider on May 13, cleared with L and DOD (ISA), and approved by Bane. Repeated to CINCPAC and COMUS/Japan.
1. Documents 50–52.
2. Not found.
3. All ellipses are in the source text.
4. In telegram 2369 from Tokyo, May 11, the Embassy commented on CINCPAC proposals related to the Administrative Agreement. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.94/5–1159)
5. In telegram 1733 to Tokyo, May 16, the Department made changes in paragraphs 17 and 19: “Para 17 should read ‘Article XXIV deletion approved.’ Para 19 should read ‘Article XXV 2 (b) yen contribution question still under consideration.’ Will send separate message.” (Ibid., 611.94/5–1659)