Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI, Part 1

694.001/7–1551: Telegram

The United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald) to the Secretary of State

confidential
priority

Tokyo, July 15, 1951—6 p. m.

Topad 123. For Dulles. Under date July 12 Jap Govt has submitted fol “observations” on July 3 draft treaty:

Begin text: 1. Art 3.

Your attention is requested to (a) of our observations dated 4 April, 1951.¹ While “Nansei Islands” includes all islands south of 29 degrees north latitude, “Ryukyu Islands” do not.

2. Art 4.

First sentence para a wld seem properly to read as stated in our observations dated July 2, 1951, since “… property … of such authorities and residents against Jap and its natls …” wld make no sense.

3. Art 14.

Proviso of (a) 2 (1) V (“provided that this exception shall only apply to obligations of Jap and its natls expressed in Jap currency”) seems to refer only to first part of this para (“obligations of Jap for Jap natls”). If so proviso might better be placed immed after words to which it refers.

4. Art 15.

Suggested that in last part of para A, “in cases where such property was within Jap on Dec 7, 1941, and cannot be returned or has suffered injury or damage, compensation will be made in accordance with law No …” words “as a result of the war” be inserted after “damage”. These words are found in corresponding sentence of Art 78, 4 (a), of Ital peace treaty and wording will also conform to provisions of draft compensation law.

5. Art 16.

In first sentence, there is passage, “… Jap will transfer its assets and those of its natls in countries which were neutral during war, or which were at war with any of allied powers, or equivalent of such assets, …”. Insertion herein of words “or equivalent of such assets” is construed to mean that, in lieu of transfer of those assets of Jap and its natls which now exist, equivalent thereof may be transferred if govt so desires. It is not considered to mean that if assets which were owned previously by Jap and its natls in such countries are impossible of transfer in their status quo ante for certain causes (subsequent decrease in value, use in Jap interest, etc.), Jap shld transfer equivalent thereof. It is suggested word “existent” be inserted between “its” and “assets”.

6. Art 17.

Requirements of first sentence have mostly been put into practice during the occupation, as stated in our observations given July 2, 1951.² Purport will become more clear if defining term “if it has not done so” is added.

7. Art 21.

This art entitles Chi to benefits of Art 14 (a) 2. It may be pointed out that benefits are counterpoised by waiver of claims by allied powers under para (b) of same art. Korea is entitled to benefits of Arts 9 and 12. Art 9 envisages desire of allied powers to conclude an agreement. Art 12 envisages allied powers themselves according Jap most-favored-nation treatment or natl treatment. In other words, these provisions envisage existence of a counterpart on part of allied powers. The govt believes that such will be case with Chi and Korea. Therefore, with re to Art 14, it is believed more advisable either to include (b) in referring to this art or to drop Art 14, (a) (2). Phraseology of Art 21 seems to leave room for misunderstanding.

8. Declaration concerning international instruments. Regarding para 1: a. Contemplated therein that Jap declares she recognizes full force of all presently effective multilateral international instruments to which she was party on Sept 1, 1939. Jap Govt believes such declaration shld be confined to multilateral international instruments of nonpolitical character. Otherwise such treaties as Nine Power Pact³ and Four Power Pact of 1922⁴ wld be recognized as in full effect, which wld be contrary to actual situation. b. With regard to participation in certain international instruments, there is passage to effect that if such participation involves membership in an international org, provisions of the present para shall take effect upon Jap readmission to membership in org concerned. So far as Jap Govt aware, there is no international org of which Jap was member as of Sept 1, 1939 and has ceased to be member thereafter. Accordingly, sentence beginning with “Where, however,” might be deleted.

Re para 2:

The Govt is entirely willing to accede to all international instruments herein mentioned. However, some are voluminous (e.g., international convention relating to economic statistics with protocols, convention on safety of life at sea, conventions for protection of war victims). Some require domestic legislation or its amendment in advance (e.g., international convention relating to simplification of customs formalities, convention on safety of life at sea, conventions for protection of war victims). Therefore, it is actually impossible to complete procedure of accession to all of these in such cases within six months of coming into force of treaty of peace. It is hoped that term will be defined as “within the shortest practicable period”.

Re para 3:

The govt will willingly participate in international orgs mentioned therein. It is hoped, however, that term will be defined as “within the shortest practicable period”, for same reason as mentioned in reference to para 2 above.

9. Declaration concerning war graves.

a. This declaration concerns a matter of humanity, which requires no discriminatory treatment as between victor and vanquished. It is hoped that feelings of Jap people will be taken into consideration. It wld be appreciated if declaration cld be made jointly, by adding that allied powers also intend to treat in a proper manner graves and cemeteries of Jap war dead in their territory, or at least if a passage which may read “The Jap Govt expects that the allied powers will treat in a proper manner the graves and cemeteries of Jap war dead in their territory” cld be added in this para.

b. Words “allied and associated powers” and “allied or associated power” used in declaration shld be “allied powers” or “allied power”. End text.

Sebald

1. Telegram Topad 1750, p. 960.
2. Not printed; however, see telegram 14, from Tokyo, July 2, as annotated, p. 1171.
3. For the Treaties between the United States, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Portugal, signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, see TS Nos. 723 and 724 or Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, pp. 276–287.
4. For the text of the Treaty between the United States, the British Empire, France, and Japan, signed at Washington, December 13, 1921, see ibid., pp. 33–37, or TS No. 669.