611.94/10–2451
The Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Rusk) to the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Nash)
Dear Mr. Nash: With reference to the draft Administrative Agreement between the United States and Japan, the Department of State wishes to put forward certain views bearing on the formulation of those provisions of that Agreement which relate to the exercise of jurisdiction over the personnel of the proposed United States garrison forces.
The Department of State is fully aware of the heavy responsibility which devolves upon the Department of Defense for retaining effective disciplinary control over the personnel attached to United States military forces stationed abroad, while at the same time protecting such personnel from the possible arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the authorities of the nations in which such forces are stationed. It is our desire, therefore, to seek arrangements with other nations, including Japan, on such matters which are advantageous to our own national interest.
In the particular case of Japan, the Departments of State and Defense would, we believe, readily agree that our most fundamental policy objective is to associate Japan with us and the free world as a strong, prosperous and willing partner, committed to the broad purposes set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. The future orientation of the Japanese Government and people is a matter of the greatest moment to the United States. Our own future relations with that country will not be regulated merely by formal agreements; to be workable, such agreements must reflect a continuing recognition by our two nations of our mutual interests and our free association in a common cause. It is not to be expected that United States forces could, in peacetime, remain in a country where the government and a preponderant majority of the people resent their presence and desire their withdrawal. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that, unless there is a continuing and genuine agreement by the host government and people, a bare treaty right to station troops in a foreign country is not only an empty right but might become a source of bitter controversy even to the point that the continued presence of the troops becomes a security liability.
[Page 1383]In order to do everything possible to avoid such a contingency in Japan, and to obtain the maximum cooperation and genuine agreement of the Japanese to the retention of American forces in Japan as long as considered necessary, the Department of State considers it to be of the greatest importance that arrangements for the stationing of United States forces in Japan in the post-Peace Treaty period be such as not to appear to the Japanese in any way to be a continuation of the Occupation, as to meet insofar as possible Japanese sensitivity regarding their national sovereignty and equality, as to avoid any appearance of an attempted reversion to extraterritoriality, and as to guard against giving the Japanese any basis for belief that our policies are motivated by considerations of racial inequalities.
With the above factors in mind, the Department of State believes that our basic national objective in this matter would best be served by jurisdictional arrangements in the Administrative Agreement with Japan which parallel the analogous provisions of the NATO Agreements and other similar international arrangements to which the United States is a party. This is not based upon any narrow concept of precedent but upon the fact that the Japanese will test the arrangements we seek with Japan by comparing them to arrangements we make with other sovereign and friendly powers with whom we make security agreements. In view of the extreme sensitivity expected of the Japanese in the period immediately ahead, arrangements which are frankly discriminatory against them would sooner or later forfeit the good will and cooperation of the Japanese, without which the effective implementation of our proposed security treaty would be impossible.
In urging that the jurisdiction provisions in the Administrative Agreement with Japan parallel those of the NATO Agreements, the Department of State believes that it might be possible to make certain practical arrangements which, while preserving the principle of equal treatment, might remove possible causes of friction.
It is assumed by the Department of State that the Administrative Agreement would be subject to review at the request of either party; some adjustment can be made as experience under the Agreement indicates the need for it.
The Department of State is ready to enter detailed discussions with the Department of Defense on this problem of jurisdiction as well as on other aspects of our collective security arrangements with Japan.
Sincerely yours,