694.001/7–2751: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald)1
Topad 129. Sebald from Dulles. Various US Depts concerned have now completed final consideration proposed Bilateral Security [Page 1227] Treaty.2 This consideration leads us to propose fol changes which we consider to be desirable clarifications not involving any change of substance or intent:
1. At end of second para, after “world” add new sentence reading “Therefore Jap desires a security treaty with the US to come into force simultaneously with the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace between Jap and the US and other Allied Powers.”
The purpose here is to make clear that the coming into force of this Treaty is intended to be simultaneous with the Peace Treaty so there will be no interval of power vacuum, or ambiguity.
2. In para 3, after word “Japan” add “as a sovereign nation.” The purpose is to bring this third Preamble into closer conformity with the actual text of the Art 5 (c) of the draft Treaty of Peace.
3. Art 1, substitute “dispose” for “station”.
The purpose is stylistic to use a word which corresponds more nearly with normal military parlance. This we assume would involve no change in the Jap text.
4. Change second sentence of Art 1 to read “Such forces may be utilized to contribute to the maintenance of intl peace and security in the Far East and to the security of Jap against armed attack from without, etc.”
The purpose is to make clear that the US forces in and about Jap are not earmarked and dedicated so exclusively for Jap that they cld not be used elsewhere to maintain intl peace and security as, for example, US forces in and about Jap were used for the aid of So. Korea when it was attacked. Recognition of this fact is in our common interest. In view of the responsibilities of the US in the area and its commitments to the Phils, NZ and Austr, the US cld not afford to earmark any particular forces exclusively for any particular area. We don’t think that this was ever the intent of Art 1 but DepDef now insists on necessity of expressly negativing any such possibility.
The phrase “Such forces may be utilized, etc” is substituted for “Such disposition, etc.” purely as clarification. We believe it is implicit that forces could be utilized for the purposes mentioned but this is preferably made explicit.
5. Art 2, insert after “maneuver” the words “or transit of ground, air or naval forces.”
We believe this is already included in the concept of “maneuver” but again DepDef feels clarification desirable.
After informing Gen. Ridgway pls clear foregoing as rapidly as possible with Jap Govt. [Dulles.]