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

611.94/2–152: Telegram

No. 493
The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State

secret
priority

Tokyo, February 1, 1952.

1608. From SCAP to SecState; info SecDef. CX–62688. This is Sebald’s 1608. No. 9. From Rusk. Rusk, Johnson, Bond met Okazaki, Nishimura Thursday¹ p.m., continuation informal discussion Articles 1, 2, 15, 21.²

Re Article 1, to Jap’s objection inclusion of contractors and subcontractors, Rusk re-emphasized basic inequities of and US objection to taxation of US-appropriated funds either directly or indirectly by country in which such funds were spent for aid, security or economic assistance. Japanese experience with contractors of their own or foreign nationality unsatisfactory and unsavory. Consequently, term is surcharged with political reaction for them. Rusk suggested seeking language which would eliminate specific reference to contractors but retaining substance of meaning. Japs in essential agreement with this approach.

Re Article 15, Jap questions were posed to force a restatement of US basic thinking underlying US position, which Rusk emphatically presented,³ whereupon Jap suggested agreement to US proposal subject to satisfactory resolution by Technical Committee. Rusk agreed and suggested simultaneous submission to Technical Committee of Article 14⁴ which met with Jap approval.

Re Article 2, Okazaki restated Jap realization of and willingness to meet needs of US forces. Stated Jap Govt’s political problems this respect would be greatly alleviated if preliminary study by Joint Committee of Technical Experts could begin thorough review of requirements Moreover his government is plagued by Diet and opposition with questions of respective size of garrison and magnitude of facilities and areas which will be required. He states unknowns are major source of difficulty, not principle, as his govt is desirous of meeting US needs fully.

Rusk stated such committee would need prior clarification of certain basic principles and admin agreement for guidance, but he would consult with colleagues as to feasibility such approach. Also indicated uncertain status Korean operation seriously aggravates problem estimating needs.

Johnson corrected Okazaki’s impression there had been substantial recent procurement acquisitions, referred to in Rusk’s Series No. 7.⁵ No such acquisitions made, only survey in search of substitute areas. Okazaki repeated his govt’s desire to provide proper and sufficient facilities and areas even to using part of 56 billion yen in new budget included under title “Security Measures”. Rusk expressed appreciation their frank statement their position. Article deferred for further study by mutual agreement.

Re Article 22, Rusk forestalled additional discussion this article on grounds not prepared to discuss specific Jap comments already received. Okazaki restated his and Yoshida’s belief that as practical matter in case imminent or actual hostilities American commander and combined command a necessity. However, in view forthcoming election, constitutional restrictions, and public sensitivity, paragraph 2 this article was causing real political concern. Substance indicated as being satisfactory; wording politically inexpedient.

In summary, Okazaki stated admin agreement following discussions now contains only two major politically important issues for Jap Govt, i.e., facilities and areas Article 2, and (defense measures Article 22. These articles they already agree to in principle. Therefore, he believes mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached.

Sebald

1. Jan. 31.
2. Article XXI, entitled “Security of Forces and Property”, was not discussed at the meeting. Apparently Article XXII is meant.

3. An excerpt from Bond’s memorandum of this conversation follows:

   “Minister Okazaki then raised the question of Article XV on Criminal Jurisdiction. Ambassador Rusk said that, for reasons which he had pointed out the previous day, it would be difficult to depart substantially from the principles set forth in our draft, but that we might move ahead if there remained only technical and drafting problems. Minister Okazaki indicated that in principle the U.S. draft of Article XV is acceptable and that all he had in mind was further discussion by technical experts as to phraseology and other details. Referring to Mr. Nishimura’s comments of the previous day concerning the probable necessity for certain changes in the NATO formula in its application to Japan, Ambassador Rusk stated that he wished, in a spirit of candor, to make it perfectly clear that, although we would be disposed to agree to appropriate adaptation of the NATO formula, we would not be able to accord to Japan more favorable treatment than that accorded to the NATO countries. Mr. Nishimura said that was understood.” (611.94/2–2352)

4. Entitled “Respect for the Laws of Japan”.
5. No. 7 in the Rusk series is telegram 1594 from Tokyo, Jan. 31. (611.94/1–3152) It summarizes the talk described in the memorandum of conversation, Document 490.