Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, China and Japan, Volume XIV, Part 2

611.94/1–1052: Telegram

No. 469
The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State

secret priority

Tokyo, January 10, 1952—noon.

Topad 1427. For Rusk. Re Deptel 1921, Jan 7.¹ In general we heartily concur with sections 1, 2 and 3 of proposed directive transmitted DA 91007 Jan 3.

We inclined fear, however, that principles set forth therein wld be seriously jeopardized by provisions para 4 (b)² which wld appear in large measure to remove implementation of admin agreement from civilian control, at both Tokyo and Wash levels. In view fact that manner in which admin agreement carried out will to considerable degree determine whole course of US–Jap post-treaty relations, para 4(b) wld seem to confer upon CINCFE powers inconsistent with clear paramountcy which shld attach the Amb as senior US joint comite be civilian designated by CINCFE who wld act as tech adviser and generally sit as US rep on matters of purely mil nature. Any differences of view as between Amb and CINCFE concerning matters arising in joint comite wld be resolved in Wash through normal procedures and resulting directives sent by State Dept to Amb. (CINCFE wld of course continue receive directives on purely mil matters from JCS.) In this way main channel relations between US and Jap Govts wld continue to be through State Dept and Emb, as it shld be, with negots through mil channels confined to mil matters.

In addition fundamental need for civilian control over basic elements US post-treaty policy in Japan, psychological advantage of civilian rather than mil representation of US on joint comite wld be considerable, as demonstrating subordination of mil to civilian control and as marking end of mil ascendancy which Japs have come to regard as hall-mark of occupation. It shld be borne in mind, moreover, that Jap representation will of necessity be civilian in character, at least in the early stages. FYIDA 91007 not shown us until requested from GHQ Jan 8 pursuant your tel.³

Sebald

1. In this telegram, marked “Sebald from Rusk”, the Department asked for comment on a draft directive to CINCFE on the proposed administrative agreement with Japan. (611.94/1–752) This draft directive dated Jan. 2, was transmitted to Tokyo in Department of the Army telegram 91007, Jan. 3.

2. Paragraph 4 (b) of the draft directive reads:

   “CINCFE is responsible for designating the U.S. membership and staff of the Joint Committee provided in the Administrative Agreement and for the conduct of negotiations in the Joint Committee on matters within the Joint Committee’s function. CINCFE will keep the U.S. Government informed at all times of the status of negotiations in the Joint Commitee by frequent reports to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. CINCFE will keep the U.S. Ambassador informed at all times of the status of negotiations in the joint Committee; the U.S. Ambassador will furnish political advice to CINCFE on matters before the Joint Committee; the U.S. Ambassador will furnish political advice to CINCFE on matters before the Joint Committee and will designate a political officer to work with the U.S. section of the Joint Committee requiring such directives. Differences of view among U.S. departments and agencies on questions arising in the Joint Committee will be resolved in Washington and the necessary directives issued to CINCFE.” (611.94/1–252)

3. In Topad 1945 to Tokyo, Jan. 11, drafted by Rusk and marked “Eyes only for Sebald from Rusk”, the Department replied:

   “Dept fully concurs your gen view Amb responsibility for all US-Jap relations post-Treaty period but believes this can best be exercised re: administrative agreement through full info by CINCFE to Amb and Dept, polit advice by Amb to CINCFE in Tokyo and Dept intervention in Wash and concurrence on all directives. In event of differences in Joint Comite discussion wld probably be lifted to gov talks through Amb. While Dept therefore will probably not take your advice on Amb role in Joint Comite, Dept will vigorously maintain propriety your giving such advice. Rusk informed Def we were seeking your advice and Def furnished tel number to avoid duplicate transmission.”(611.94/1–1152)