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

611.94/2–1052: Telegram

No. 506
The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State

secret priority

Tokyo, February 10, 1952.

1664. Info SecDef CX 63288. This is Sebald’s 1664, Feb 10. Number 18. From Rusk. Ref my number 17¹ regarding Article 23. Proposed draft results from discussion Diehl, Johnson, Hamblen, Morrison and myself as effort simplification and clarity in further discussions with Japanese. Principal objection our original language is its vague and ill-defined concepts and difficulty in supporting with hard figures.

Following para references to Washington draft article 23.

Para 1 dropped since phrases “relative contribution”, “total resources” as interpreted by Japanese require unnecessary financial procedures of controversial and impractical character. Binding this agreement to “any comparable arrangements for collective security concluded by US with other powers” opens way for Japs to secure copies of all such agreements and under most-favored nation reasoning bargain for concessions granted any other nation.

Para 2 retained in new draft with exception of parity principle. This concept omitted as involving calculations based on unrealistic definition of local costs.

Para 3 reworded without reducing either Japanese responsibility or financial commitment.

Para 4 dropped as involving open end commitment by US to bear costs in all “other” category. This may have to be reinserted to meet Japanese arguments in favor of its inclusion.

In para 5, requirement for accurate accounting retained but statement of principle dropped as unnecessary to satisfactory implementation this article.

Para 6 dropped as superfluous.

Right of US to utilize dollar or yen funds lawfully acquired is unquestioned. Consider inadvisable to indicate any Jap right to block which is implied in para 6.

We understand language paras 1 and latter part para 2 intended primarily as window dressing for eyes Japanese public. Consequently we believe deletion desirable in view Japanese resistance to language.

Does Department see objection our using this draft as basis negotiation?

Sebald

1. Telegram 1660 from Tokyo, Document 504.