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

611.94/2–2352: Telegram

No. 529
The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State

secret
niact

Tokyo, February 23, 1952.

1760. Rptd Secretary Defense CX 64172. This is Sebald’s 1760. No. 36 from Rusk. After consultation with Johnson and Ridgway, language final para exchange of notes art 2 was discussed with Okazaki with result that fol is submitted for final clearance US Govt. Text final para US note to Japan:

“However, unavoidable delays may arise in the determination and preparation of facilities and areas necessary to carry out the purposes stated in art 1 of the security treaty. It would be much appreciated, therefore, if Japan would grant the continued use of those particular facilities and areas, with respect to which agreements and arrangements have not been completed by the expiration of 90 days after the effective date of the treaty of peace with Japan, pending the completion of such agreements and arrangements.”¹

Corresponding change would be made text note Japan to US, of which final para would read:

“With full appreciation of the contents of your Excellency’s note, I have the honor, on behalf of the Jap Govt, to confirm that the Jap Govt will grant to the US the continued use of those particular facilities and areas, with respect to which agreements and arrangements have not been completed by the expiration of 90 days after the effective date of the treaty of peace with Japan, pending the completion of such agreement and arrangements.”²

Pls note that above language takes into account that it is continued use of facilities and areas on which agreements and arrangements have not been completed by expiration 90 days after date of Jap treaty instead of facilities now in use. Many of facilities “now” in use will have been agreed upon and many others will have been returned to Japan. Jap commitment, therefore, is on those facilities and areas on which there would be any problem.

Note also use of words “will grant”. We believe that confirmation now that the Jap Govt will grant continued use of the facilities and areas referred to is as binding and satisfactory a commitment as we would have if present tense “grants” were used. Okazaki said since entire situation was one cast in future tense, it would look “most peculiar” to use present tense on this word. He strongly insisted that commitment Jap Govt is same in both instances.

Okazaki expressed deep gratitude for understanding US Govt regarding art 22 and said that our generalized language would greatly strengthen Jap Govt in supporting admin agreement. Okazaki and I agreed that we should not complicate arts 2 and 22 by insertion of any comments in the official minutes.

Believe proposed text gives full effect to desires JCS and to real meaning of commitment we wanted under our original draft. Strongly urge its immediate approval by quickest available communications.³

Info copy furnished Ridgway.

Sebald

1. The suggested text of this paragraph in telegram 2280 to Tokyo, Feb. 21, was as follows:

   “‘It is recognized that delays may arise in the determination of the specific facilities and areas mentioned in Art 2, para 1 of the Administrative Agreement between the USA and Jap signed today. It wld be much appreciated, therefore, if Jap wld grant continued use of those particular facilities and areas now in use by US Armed forces pending agreement by the 2 Govts through the Joint Comite.’”

   Regarding telegram 2280, see footnote 1, supra.

2. The suggested text of this paragraph in telegram 2280 was as follows:

   “‘With full appreciation contents of ur excellency’s note, I have the honor, on behalf of Jap Govt, to confirm that Jap Govt recognizes that delays may arise in determination of specific facilities and areas mentioned in Art 2, Para 1 of Administrative Agreement between USA and Jap signed today. Accordingly, Jap grants to US continued use of those particular facilities and areas now in use by US Armed Forces pending agreement by 2 Govts through the Joint Comite.’”

3. The Department cabled its approval of the changes in telegram 2288 to Tokyo, Feb. 23, which had been cleared with the Department of Defense. (611.94/2–2352)