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

104. Telegram From Department of State to the Embassy in Japan⁰

Washington, November 17, 1959, 6:57 p.m.

1217. Embtel 1241.¹ We recognize desirability of clarifying publicly to maximum extent possible treaty arrangements and avoiding different interpretations. Points raised by Fujiyama in reftel however pose problems for us and desire you explore them further with GOJ on following basis:

(1) Consultation Formula: In interpreting formula, we prepared state: a) US intends live up to commitment to consult fully with GOJ on introduction of nuclear and direct launching combat operations from Japan; b) Consultation would be for purpose of developing common agreed views of US and Japan, and US would expect to handle matter in light thereof. If you feel it advantageous, you may also point out that in effect consultation formula involves procedure for seeking GOJ agreement to certain US actions in Japan.

FYI: We recognize that failure to respect GOJ views on introduction nuclear and direct launching of combat operations likely make continuation our base rights politically untenable. Our efforts define very carefully terms of consultation formula further evidence our willingness respect views of GOJ when consultation takes place. End FYI.

(2) Article III Islands. For reasons set forth Deptel 1734 (May 16, 1959),² we continue desire avoid formal note or minute referring to Article III Islands. Believe GOJ interest in area preferably reflected in less formal manner. GOJ for example might point out possibility that consultation formula will provide opportunity for it to reflect and even act upon Japanese concern for safety Article III inhabitants in event Article III Islands attacked.

(3) Far East. You will recall term “Far East” used in treaty at request GOJ on grounds “Far East” used in present Security Treaty. (We had preferred term “Pacific” which more common to our treaty language.) Under these circumstances, we assumed “Far East” was acceptable from Japanese standpoint. From our viewpoint desire avoid any precise definition “Far East” and do not anticipate Congressional inquiries on this point. Therefore desire you query GOJ on their past interpretation this term.

FYI. According National Geographic Society, Far East has no precise definition but used loosely cover Asian Arc from Japan thru Burma, excluding Siberia, Australia-New Zealand, and smaller Pacific Islands as Marianas normally included in Oceania. There are clear disadvantages to such definitions, particularly exclusion our Pacific islands. You will recall also instance in 1950 when geographical description of US defense perimeter may have emboldened Commie attack on South Korea. End FYI.

(4) Indirect Aggression. Plan take no action on this unless Fujiyama submits proposal on this matter.

Defense concurs.

Herter

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/10–2259. Confidential. Drafted by Sneider, cleared with L/FE and OSD/ISA, and approved by Steeves. Repeated to CINCPAC exclusive for Admiral Felt and POLAD, to COMUS/Japan exclusive for General Burns, and to Naha exclusive for Blankinship and General Booth.
1. Document 101.
2. Document 61.