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

794.0221/1–2252

No. 485
Memorandum by the Director of Central Intelligence (Smith) to the Secretary of State¹

secret

[Washington,] January 22, 1952.

Subject:

• Draft Administrative Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan

1. The State Department “Draft Administrative Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan” dated 21 December 1951 has been referred by the State Department to CIA for its views.

2. Along with Article XV titled “Criminal Jurisdiction” (State Draft) is an Article XV titled “Criminal Jurisdiction and Related Matters” (Defense Draft). CIA favors the Defence Draft because the latter provides for immunity from arrest for United States Armed Services civilian component and dependent personnel by Japanese authorities except for actions involving serious injury or death to individuals, whereas the State Draft places such persons in jeopardy for any offense committed under Japanese law.

3. I feel strongly that United States personnel in post-treaty Japan are entitled to a degree of U.S. protection and immunity from local arrest not normally accorded to foreigners because of the nature of their duties. Those negotiating the administrative agreement with the Japanese should attempt to secure this protection to the maximum extent possible without jeopardizing our overall national policy objectives in Japan.²

Walter B. Smith

1. This memorandum was attached to a memorandum of the same date, not printed, from John F. Killea, Director of the Executive Staff in the Office of the Special Assistant for Intelligence, to Gerald Warner, Officer in Charge of Japanese Affairs.
2. In a reply of Feb. 4, Allison stated that agreement on the compromise draft Article XV had already been reached by the time Smith’s memorandum had been received. “Basically, it was agreed that upon the coming into force of the North Atlantic Treaty Agreement the United States will immediately conclude with Japan an agreement on criminal jurisdiction similar to the corresponding provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty Agreement. In the interim it is proposed that criminal jurisdiction be exercised along lines proposed in the Defense Draft to which you refer.” (611.94/1–2252)