Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Japan; Korea, Volume XVIII

101. Telegram From the Embassy in Japan to the Department of State⁰

Tokyo, October 22, 1959, 8 p.m.

1241. CINCPAC exclusive for POLAD and Admiral Felt. COMUS Japan exclusive for General Burns. Naha exclusive for Blankinship and General Booth. Embassy despatch 482.¹ At meeting with Fujiyama yesterday he said that in course of gaining LDP approval for report of party subcommittee on the security treaty, some points of clarification had arisen and he had been charged with discussing them with me.

(1) Re consultation formula Fujiyama said that as we are aware there had been considerable discussion within party whether “consultation” means that there must be “agreement”. Fujiyama recalled my strong representations that the word “agreement” should not appear in consultation formula and said LDP security treaty subcommittee (see paragraph 23 of enclosure to Embassy despatch 482) has now rejected minority view that GOJ should seek to substitute word “agreement” for “consultation” but at same time recommended that GOJ obtain some understanding from US to make sure that public interpretations given by US and Japan do not differ. Fujiyama said he was not looking for any written understanding but wanted us to know that if GOJ is asked whether US would be able to take actions (introduction of nuclear weapons or direct launching of combat operations from Japan) without Japanese agreement, GOJ would reply that such eventuality is inconceivable; that US and Japan are like-minded free nations and would be consulting in order to arrive at common agreed view; and that therefore US would clearly not act in opposition to Japanese views in cases covered by consultation formula.

(2) Re Ryukyus and Bonins, the party had asked GOJ to obtain some understanding that even though those islands are not in treaty area, Japan would not be barred from contributing to safety of islanders in event of an emergency although any such contribution would of course have to be made only after consultation with US which has defense responsibility. Fujiyama said here again he did not have in mind any new agreement but he may propose to us that a statement by GOJ, expressing its interest in safety of people of Ryukyus and Bonins, be recorded in a negotiating minute to satisfy this requirement placed upon him by the party.

(3) Re Far East, Fujiyama said party was concerned over haziness in term “Far East” which appears in three places in our treaty draft. He said it was not necessary in his view that we formalize any agreed interpretation of that term but he had to give assurances that there would be no divergence in definition or public interpretation of word “Far East” as given by GOJ in Japanese Diet and by USG in our Congress. Accordingly he said he would appreciate if we could let him know how we would propose to answer questions about precise geographical extent of “Far East” if such questions were to arise in our Congress. Request Department views on how questions about extent of “Far East” would be answered.

(4) Finally Fujiyama said there is still some concern on part of Kaya and others over possibility of indirect aggression against Japan and perhaps he would want to suggest a minute on this subject.

MacArthur

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/10–2259. Confidential; Limit Distribution. Repeated to CINCPAC, COMUS/Japan, and Naha.
1. Despatch 482, October 19, reported on the recent deliberations by the LDP subcommittee on the revision of the security treaty. A minority of the membership, largely inspired by Kono, the despatch reported, caused a succession of stormy meetings. A translation of the LDP security treaty subcommittee report is enclosed with the despatch. (Ibid., 794.5/10–1959)