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

611.94/2–2352

No. 528
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Counselor of the Mission in Japan (Bond)

secret

Tokyo, February 23, 1952.

Participants:

• Ambassador Rusk
• Assistant Secretary Johnson
• Mr. Bond
• Minister Okazaki
• Mr. Nishimura

Subject:

• Informal Discussion with Japanese Delegation Concerning Administrative Agreement Negotiations

The above listed members of the two Delegations met again at 4:30 p.m. today to continue their informal conversations concerning the Administrative Agreement negotiations.

Ambassador Rusk stated that he wished to discuss Articles II and XXII in the light of new instructions from Washington, where careful consideration had been given to the views of the Japanese Government on these subjects. He added that the U.S. had been able to meet the Japanese views on both Articles to an important degree.

He stated that, although there is general agreement on the text of Article II itself¹ and on the principle of the accompanying exchange of notes, Washington had expressed some concern as to the proposed language of these notes. He said that he had undertaken to incorporate certain of the points raised by Washington in a redraft of the exchange of notes, in an endeavor to reconcile the respective viewpoints of Washington and the Japanese Government. He then distributed the text² of his revised drafts, which he proceeded to explain to Minister Okazaki. During the course of such explanation, Ambassador Rusk pointed out that the changes suggested by Washington were primarily motivated by a strong desire for more specific assurances regarding the right of U.S. security forces to remain in such facilities as might not be agreed upon during the 90-day period.

Ambassador Rusk then stated that, before hearing the views of the Japanese Delegation on the suggested revision of the exchange of notes under Article II, he wished to go on and cover the remainder of his new instructions by explaining Washington’s latest point of view regarding Article XXII. He stated that the views of the Japanese Government regarding the problem presented by the language of Article XXII, particularly that concerning a “combined command”, had, led to a complete re-examination of the problem in Washington, in the light of the political problems which might be created for the Prime Minister and the Japanese Government by that Article. He went on to say that there was a strong disinclination in Washington to do anything which would add unnecessarily to the difficult problems which would confront the Japanese Government during the forthcoming important period of transition from occupation to full sovereignty, and that it had accordingly been decided recede from the previous U.S. position on Article XXII and to accept in its stead a broad general statement along the Japanese Government. He stated that he wished to make it clear, however, that this did not mean that the U.S. Government had changed its desiderata with respect to Article XXXII, nor did it mean that the U.S. Government will not want to discuss at a later date the subject matter formerly dealt with in Article XXII. He reiterated that, on the contrary, this change was indicative merely of recognition on the part of the U.S. Government of the political difficulties which might be created for the Japanese Government by the language which we had previously proposed. Ambassador Rusk then handed Minister Okazaki the text of his Government’s proposed redraft of Article XXII.³

Reverting to Article II, Minister Okazaki advanced certain changes of language in the proposed exchange of notes, which, after discussion with certain members of his Delegation, Ambassador Rusk said that he would refer to Washington for approval. Ambassador Rusk stated that at the present advanced stage of the negotiations the U.S. Delegation would need to be assured, in referring this matter to Washington, that these changes represented the firm position of the Japanese Government and would not be subject to further substantial revision. Minister Okazaki confirmed that his suggestions could be regarded as representing the firm position of his Government. Ambassador Rusk stated that it was the wish of his Delegation to omit any mention of Articles II and XXII from the Official Minutes,⁴ and to have everything having to do with those Articles included in the text of the Administrative Agreement, and, in the case of Article II, in the accompanying exchange of notes. Minister Okazaki stated that his Delegation was in agreement on that point.

Turning again to Article XXII, Ambassador Rusk stated that, despite the most recent change in the position of his Government on this Article, we were nonetheless grateful for the strenuous efforts of the Prime Minister and Minister Okazaki to meet our views on this Article. Minister Okazaki then gave assurance that the deletion of the phrase “combined command” from Article XXII will not be interpreted by the Japanese Government to mean that we are no longer interested in the establishment of such a command. Assistant Secretary Johnson stated that Minister Okazaki and the Prime Minister might be interested to know that General Ridgway had been of considerable help on Article XXII. Minister Okazaki stated that he would convey that information to the Prime Minister.

Minister Okazaki concluded by saying that the change in the U.S. position on Article XXII would “greatly strengthen” the position of the Japanese Government in dealing with opposition to the security arrangements between the U.S. and Japan.

Niles W. Bond

1. In telegram 2280 to Tokyo, Feb. 21, marked “For Rusk”, and “State–Def Msg”, the Department transmitted, for the purpose of implementing the JCS position on Article II (contained in Topad 2272 to Tokyo, Document 525), a new text of Article II and the proposed related exchange of notes. (611.94/2–2152) This text was in substance the same as that finally agreed on, with the exceptions shown in the telegram 1760, infra.
2. Available documentation does not indicate whether or not this draft was identical to that contained in telegram 2280, cited in footnote 1 above.
3. See the last paragraph of telegram DA 901763, supra.
4. Not found in Department of State files.