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

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

Washington, June 16, 1959, 7:30 p.m.

1972. CINCPAC exclusive for Admiral Felt and POLAD. COMUS/J exclusive for General Burns. Ref: Embtels 2644, 2676, 2577.¹ Following comments relate to numbered paragraphs Embtel 2644

1. We are most reluctant to drop reference to Pacific area. As you have noted, its inclusion would have most favorable impact on Congress and public here. However, in view strong stand GOJ on this issue, we are willing to drop this language at point during negotiations where in your discretion it would be helpful in gaining concessions we want, especially with respect to Articles III and VI.

2. See comments paragraph 4 below.

3. Text received here reads “terminate their treaty”. This should read “terminate the treaty.” Otherwise, text confirmed.

4. Concur in and greatly appreciate strong position you have taken against separate article on constitutionality. In light firm position expressed by Kishi and Fujiyama, we will accept addition in Article III of the following phrase: “in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.” You should point out that this language identical with phrase used in Article V. Difference of language in Articles III and V could give rise during Diet presentation to question as to difference in interpretation or meaning. We strongly prefer our language as opposed to that proposed by GOJ since latter emphasizes, too strongly for purposes of mutuality, that there may be limitations on assistance to be rendered by either party. While we recognize this is true in case of Japan, believe Japanese interests are fully protected under our proposal. If GOJ insists on “Subject to their constitutional provisions,” attempt to ascertain basis for GOJ preference this language over “in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.” If there is no substantive difference in GOJ interpretation of both phrases and GOJ insistence based on phrase which least likely cause political difficulties, you may accept GOJ language.

Our agreement to accept additional language in Article III was reached after long and careful study. One major concern with regard to separate article on constitutionality is that inclusion of reference to constitutional limitations could impair our use of bases in Japan in cases other than direct attack against Japan. Our concern stemmed primarily from Article 9 of Constitution. This could be construed as precluding Japan granting permission to establish bases as well its permission to use bases in circumstances which might be considered as involving Japan in “belligerency.” In this regard Defense not reassured by legal paper submitted by Japanese (Embtel 2577).

You should urge upon GOJ introductory phrase Article VI as follows: “For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, etc.” You should stress our strong feeling on this, pointing out that language gives flavor of mutuality which has been greatly reduced in other provisions of treaty and that in fact this language consistent with purposes expressed in present security treaty. However, if GOJ rejects our language and they assure us that their language would not have different effect than our language on possible use of bases in Far East action, you may accept their proposal as contained in Embtel 2498.²

Dillon

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 794.5/6–1259. Confidential; Niact; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Sneider; cleared with OSD/ISA, L/FE, and by Robertson in substance; and approved by Bane. Repeated to CINCPAC and COMUS/Japan.
1. Documents 73, 76, and 67.
2. Documents 65.