611.94/2–2752: Telegram
No. 531
The United States Political Adviser to
SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State
priority
Topad 1795. Ref Mistel 1783, Feb 26 [27].1 State Minister Okazaki presented draft administrative agreement to Cabinet yesterday. Approval given with little objection. Cabinet agreed rush bills as required by agreement’s provisions on taxation, safety measures for garrison force, procurement by garrison, and legal jurisdiction over US soldiers and civilians. Early comment from opposition unfavorable, generally critical, sometimes bitter. Progressive reform chief Nomiki characterized adoption “nationality principle” criminal jurisdiction as “subservient and disgraceful”. Upper House Ryokufukai,2 although generally satisfied with agreement as whole, expressed dissatisfaction with “nationality principle” contending nationality principle more appropriate for “sovereign nations on equal footing.” Both right and left wing Socialists, as expected, expressed opposition. Mizutani of right wing policy council said principle “places serious restriction on our sovereignty.” Left-winger [Page 1195] Wada said “this not agreement between two nations on equal basis. Will establish military bases everywhere in country and place nearly half public facilities under military custody.” Later in day opposition parties issued fol statement: “Govt and its party are secretly concluding agreement that restricts sovereignty of state and basic human rights of people. Moreover, they have used majority power force through budget bill which inseparably related to administrative agreement. This is dictatorial politics, ignoring Diet’s right of deliberation.”
Although text of agreement will not be released until tomorrow, editorial comment today on basis substantial leak yesterday almost universally adverse, suggesting press ready criticize for criticism’s sake. Most criticism directed at criminal jurisdiction which some felt tantamount to extrality. Also, general feeling disappointment administrative agreement not brought before Diet for approval.
Mainichi said “administrative agreement does not satisfy us fully and we cannot but question to what extent agreement reflects wishes and trends national sentiment.” Again “we can understand that US does not like see drastic change from status of occupation force but from Japanese standpoint only through such change can Japanese people finally feel they are independent sovereign Japan.” Same daily regretted agreement did not clarify such points as use US troops in time emergency, facilities and areas and compensation damages caused by US soldiers on duty. Suggested effort be made revise agreement after it is signed, ending on plea that agreement not be allowed damage relations between two countries, saying, “what is important is that contents of agreement must not be allowed impair in slightest degree spirit reconciliation and mutual trust that underlies peace treaty and security pact.”
Some of frankest criticism came from Asahi which said “there is not a clause in agreement that reminds us of appearance of independent Japan. We recognize no evidence of Yoshida govt, which is highhanded in domestic administration but conciliatory in foreign relations, having tried protect our line of autonomy and independence. In response public opinion, some consideration apparently given to matter court jurisdiction but that was all. Apparent that during negotiations on administrative agreement govt quite compliant with America’s requests.” Asahi continued point out its dissatisfaction with criminal jurisdiction provisions by referring again to such cases as Senju bank robbery.