694.001/4–1751: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Political Adviser to SCAP (Sebald)
Topad 1492. For Dulles from Allison. As result of informal requests from NZ and Aus Govts (latter subsequent to Spender’s reply to you [Page 208] Reur 1826, Apr 17)1 language of statement to effect that “No one of the three would be indifferent, etc.” has been altered to put it in positive sense and also in as much as language is put in mouths of NZ and Aus Govts, to make it more in accord with actual position two Govts had taken. Present language, cleared by Pentagon today, now reads:
“The Govts of Aus and NZ, in connection with the reestablishment of peace with Japan, have suggested an arrangement between them and the US, pursuant to Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter which wld make clear that in the event of an armed attack upon any one of them in the Pacific, each of the three wld act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes; and which wld establish consultation to strengthen security on the basis of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid.”
Romulo shown statement yesterday morning and gave hearty approval. Franks given copy morning Apr 14 and today reported approval and appreciation of UK Govt over manner in which US had met UK position.
President will issue statement at press conference 4:30 p. m., Apr 18, EST.2
New Subject: Brit Emb states FonOff team will arrive Washington Apr 24 for working level discussion on Jap Treaty.3 [Allison.]
- The entire text of telegram 1826 from Tokyo reads: “For Rusk from Dulles. Assume you have Spender’s personal message to me [of April 16] agreeing to text of proposed statement and indicating they anticipate no difficulty meeting our views regarding Article 8, and suggesting April 20, Washington time, as date for issuance of statement subject to Doidge concurrence.” (694.001/4–1751) The mentioned message of Mr. Spender has not been found in Department of State files.↩
- For text, see the Department of State Bulletin, April 30, 1951, p. 699.↩
- For information regarding this negotiation, see the editorial note, p. 1021.↩