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

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

Tokyo, June 10, 1959, 10 p.m.

2644. CINCPAC exclusive for Admiral Felt and POLAD. COMUS/J exclusive for General Burns. Deptel 1889¹ and Embtel 2577.² At meeting with Fujiyama yesterday we confirmed agreed points listed Deptel 1889 and reviewed remaining outstanding questions re security treaty.

1. With respect to words “and in the Pacific area” in Preamble and Articles IV and VI, I again urged Fujiyama most strongly to accept this phrase emphasizing that it would have most favorable effect on Congressional and public opinion in US. Fujiyama said he had discussed phrase with Kishi. They recognized this language would not represent substantive undertaking on the part of Japan but such provision would be subject to misrepresentation by opposition and by hostile press as constituting undefined and indefinite broadening of Japan’s commitments; would confuse public opinion; and would be troublesome to GOJ out of all proportion to any benefit that could be gained by ourselves. Accordingly, he regretted GOJ could not agree to inclusion of words “and in the Pacific area”.

2. Re Article VI, I told Fujiyama Washington still considering his proposal to revert to “for the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan”. Fujiyama expressed concern that we seemed unable to accept this phrase since it did not ask us to ensure the security of Japan but only made the obvious point that facilities and areas were being granted to the US for the purpose of contributing to Japan’s security and in consideration of the common concern . . . etc.³

3. Re Article XI, Fujiyama accepted substitution “has” for “had”. Second paragraph that article would thus read: “However, after the treaty has been in force for ten years, either party may give notice to the other party of its intention to terminate their treaty, in which case the treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given”. (In view possible garble re deletion “if”, paragraph 8 Deptel 1889, I told Fujiyama we may have additional minor editorial change to propose for this article. Please confirm text of paragraph and advise soonest.)

4. Fujiyama then inquired as to Washington reaction to paper he had given to us, prepared by FonOff and PriMin’s office, regarding constitutional issue. He expressed earnest hope that we would be able to accept Japanese-proposed Article VIII. I replied that this matter had received most careful and sympathetic consideration in Washington but that it was absolutely impossible for us to accept Japanese proposal for reasons which I had already made clear to him. Fujiyama then asked me again to explain the reasons, which I did in great detail saying that in all frankness Japanese should abandon Article VIII and seek solution through introduction of appropriate phrase into Article III.

Fujiyama asked me if this was our final view on Japanese-proposed Article VIII and I said it was. He then said that he had discussed this matter at length with the Prime Minister and if we could accept Japanese proposal to include phrase “within their constitutional limitations” (Embtel 2577) he felt that this would be a solution which would be generally accepted in Japan although it was not as good as Japanese-proposed Article VIII.

He then explained in detail how important it was to handle this constitutional issue in the new treaty in a way which would be accepted by the majority of Japanese opinion.

If issue were not adequately handled in language of new treaty there was grave risk of most serious trouble, not excluding rejection of new treaty. Therefore he and Kishi both felt it was in our strong interest to work out a compromise solution which would wash in Japan. I said I would enquire most urgently re Washington’s views on above phrase. Fujiyama then said that if these proposals were unacceptable he did not see any way out of impasse and asked me if I had any other thoughts. I replied that Yamada had mentioned informally to me a possibility which might be worthy of consideration (Embtel 2577). Fujiyama said Yamada had discussed it with him but that tentatively he, Kishi, and legislative experts did not think it would satisfactorily meet Japanese problem. I urged him strongly to reconsider Yamada proposal: “Subject to their constitutional provisions” rather than: “within their constitutional limitations”, since I thought we would find great difficulty in accepting latter. If we can persuade Japanese to accept Yamada formula, I think we can lay to rest once and for all Japanese proposal for a separate Article VIII.

MacArthur

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/6–1059. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Repeated to CINCPAC and COMUS/Japan.
1. Document 69.
2. Document 67.
3. Ellipsis in the source text.