611.94/2–1552: Telegram
No. 515
The Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Johnson) to
the Department of the Army
CX 63651. (Army Message) Sent to Secretary Defense JCS, Frank Nash from Earl Johnson rptd Department of State. Re Rusk’s series No. 221 and 23.2 Purposely refrained from concurring reference message 22, primarily as it contains recommendations on procedure which, personally, not competent judge, i.e. official status exchange of notes under new constitutional government.
While insistence of Japanese on this method of procedure virtually precludes obtaining our desired principle expressed sentence 3 paragraph 1 Article 2 any other way, nevertheless Dept should recognize method once adopted may be extended to solve other controversial issues, i.e. Article 22. However should point out no intimation or discussion with Japs re use of this procedure any other articles. Nor should inference be drawn Japs would be willing settle Article 22 this basis.
Desire call attention Article 3 security treaty provides for adm agreements in plural and exchange notes may fall within that category.
Assuming note procedure legally satisfactory and that establishing precedent not overly objectionable, should point out while Japs gave following commitment (as explained in paragraph 4 Rusk’s message No. 22) it is in terms of restricted language i.e. “exceptional cases” “specific facilities” “particular facilities”. My sense of negotiations in terms of timing is that necessity for mutual agreement at earliest possible date these cases remains highly significant.
Discussed with Ridgway. Comments acceptable to him. Copies furnished Rusk, SCAP.
- Telegram 1689 from Tokyo, Document 513.↩
- Supra.↩