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

611.94/9–1553: Telegram

No. 691
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Japan¹

confidential
niact

Washington, September 26, 1953—10:58 a.m.

756. Joint State–Defense message. Re Criminal Jurisdiction Negotiations. Approve recommendations contained your telegrams 611, 612,² 646, 647,³ 664, 665,⁴ 683,⁵ 684.⁶ Therefore you authorized proceed with formal meetings and signing agreement.⁷

Considered highly important have Japanese divulge as much as possible content jurisdiction arrangements when press release issued as contemplated item 2 your 647. Furnish in advance press release and advise timing issuance.⁸

Re discussions on jurisdiction in Jurisdiction Subcommittee subsequent signing agreement respect waiver and notification of waiver: (1) If in negotiation time limit on notification waiver there is difficulty in holding Japanese to maximum notification period ten-fifteen days, suggest Japanese be offered extension in cases in which they request it. Might then have fifteen day maximum with extension up to ten-fifteen more days upon Japanese request. Necessity for fairly short time period should be readily explainable Japanese on administrative grounds. Any difficulties they may have based on maximum investigating period provided under their law should be taken care of by their right request extension before original period ends.

Initiation trial prior notification by Japanese of non-intention exercise jurisdiction or running of time period, whichever comes first should be avoided. If Japanese prior expiration time period chose to exercise jurisdiction in case in which actual court-martial had already commenced, Japanese-U.S. relations might be strained. FEC is of course authorized proceed prior expiration time period with investigation case and processing up to trial.

In subcommittee agreement on maximum time period for notification either waiver or non-waiver, every effort should be made introduce sentence making absolutely clear failure notify during time period constitutes waiver. Inference this effect contained in waiver statements could be argued to be less than conclusive.

Dulles

1. Drafted in NA, cleared with L/EUR and RA, and cleared in substance with Secretary of Defense Wilson.
2. Both dated Sept. 5; see footnote 5, Document 685.
3. Document 685. Regarding telegram 646, see footnotes 3, 6, and 8 thereto.
4. Both dated Sept. 11; see footnote 6, Document 685.
5. Dated Sept. 15; see ibid.
6. Dated Sept. 15, not printed. (611.94/9–1553)
7. See footnote 1, Document 685.
8. Text of the press release issued upon the signing of the Protocol in Tokyo on Sept. 29 is in telegram 805 from Tokyo, Sept. 28. (611.94/9–2853) In telegram 804 from Tokyo, also Sept. 28, the Embassy in part stated that it found the release disappointing in that suggestions for a stronger statement concerning jurisdiction arrangements had been rejected by the Japanese, but also stated that it believed “it obvious to those who have followed negotiations that statement implies satisfactory waiver arrangement reached. Further believe that Japanese disclosure jurisdiction waiver arrangements at this time would arouse suspicions and have adverse effect upon public opinion here.” (611.94/9–2853)