網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Thus the bilateral security treaty between Japan and the United States forms a natural complement to the Japanese Peace Treaty.

Provisions of the treaty

The preamble to the security treaty makes clear that Japan, as a sovereign nation, has a right to enter into collective security arrangements for self-defense purposes. It also emphasizes the desire of Japan that our armed forces be maintained there so as to deter armed attack upon the Japanese homeland. Meanwhile, it is expected that Japan will "increasingly assume responsibility for its own defense.

Article I of the security treaty grants to the United States the right to dispose land, air, and sea forces in and about Japan. It further provides that these forces may be used not only for the security of Japan but "to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East. . . ." In view of the role of the United States in U. N. operations in Korea, this is an important provision. It makes clear that any forces we might station in Japan would not be limited to the defense of Japan but could be used for the maintenance of peace anywhere in the Far East including, of course, U. N. police action in Korea.

Article I also provides that at the request of Japan our forces there may be used

to put down large-scale internal riots and disturbances in Japan, caused through instigation or intervention by an outside power or powers.

This provision recognizes the danger of indirect aggression and civil war which have been resorted to so effectively by international communism against legitimate governments in Korea, Indochina, Malaya, and elsewhere in the Far East. It should be noted that this provision relates to disturbances instigated by an outside power. It should not be assumed that our troops would be used to put down disturbances of a purely local or domestic nature. This right to act against foreign-inspired insurrection is essential to the security of United States forces in Japan and of Japan itself.

Article II provides that Japan will not grant any bases or military facilities to any third power without the prior consent of the United States. This article reflects the special relationship which exists between Japan and the United States as the principal occupying

power.

Article III provides for administrative agreements between the two Governments to cover the disposition of United States Armed Forces in and about Japan. Obviously the broad grant of power laid down in the security treaty will have to be supplemented by detailed arrangements dealing with such matters as the facilities and areas to be used, the rights of the United States in the areas, transit privileges, meteorological services, criminal jurisdiction, imports, taxation, and so on. An over-all administrative agreement between the two countries' is

1 Infra, pp. 2406-2423.

now in process of negotiation and will probably be completed before the security treaty comes into force.

Article IV provides for the termination of the treaty whenever the two Governments agree that there exist satisfactory alternative provisions for the maintenance of peace and security in the general area of Japan. Such alternative provisions might emerge in the form of a strengthened United Nations or in some other form not clearly foreseen at present. It is apparent that the treaty constitutes only a first step in the development of collective security in the Japan area. In any event, in spite of suggestions which have been made to the contrary, it is apparent that the treaty cannot be terminated without the consent of the United States.

United States commitments

The security treaty imposes no commitments or obligations upon the United States. We are not obligated to station any forces in Japan unless we decide it is in our own national interest to do so. On the other hand, the rights conferred in the treaty by Japan are very far-reaching in nature. They constitute a significant contribution on the part of Japan to the cause of the free world and to collective security.

During the hearings the question was asked as to whether any obligation flowed from the treaty for the United States to aid Japanese security by supplying such financial assistance as may be required. Ambassador Dulles replied as follows:

There is no understanding, express or implied, with reference to giving any particular economic aid or assistance to Japan. Everybody knows what the United States policy is, and it is natural that the Japanese should feel, as a partner with us, that they would not be discriminated against. But there is nothing that has been said or done which gives anyone in Japan any right to come to us and say, "You are required to continue to give us economic aid."

What we do will be determined, I take it, by what an enlightened view of our own self-interest requires. That will be a guide and the policies which the Congress lays down. Within that framework I would believe and hope that Japan, if it needed it, would be qualified to receive the kind of help which we are giving others, although Japan would never, in my opinion, need aid in the form of a grant or a gift.1

The administrative agreement and the ratification of the peace treaty

During the hearings, committee members asked representatives of the Defense Department whether the entry into force of the peace treaty with Japan might interfere with practical military operations in Korea. General Bradley replied that the treaty might interfere with such operations unless the administrative agreement contemplated in article III of the security pact with Japan were in effect. He pointed out that the agreement, which would make the necessary arrangements for the location of our armed forces in and about Japan, was then in process of negotiation. He suggested, therefore, that it

1 Statement of Jan. 22, 1952; Japanese Peace Treaty and Other Treaties Relating to Security in the Pacific: Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-second Congress, Second session, on Japanese Peace Treaty and Other Treaties Relating to Security in the Pacific, p. 54.

STANFORD LIN

might be wise to withhold ratification of the peace treaty until the administrative agreement is concluded. The two instruments could then enter into force at the same time.1

More recently the committee has been informed by the executive branch that negotiation of the administrative agreement has been proceeding satisfactorily in Tokyo. The committee believes it would be entirely appropriate, therefore, for the Senate to move ahead with the peace treaty and the related security pacts at an early date. Ratification will not occur until the President decides, with Senate consent, actually to deposit the instrument of ratification.

Use of Japanese facilities by U. N. forces

During the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of the peace treaty the United States Government took steps to make certain that the entry into force of the treaty would have no adverse effect upon the assistance now being given by Japan to the U. N. effort in Korea. Under article 5, Japan accepts the obligations set forth in article 2 of the U. N. Charter including the pledge

to give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter . . .

While this commitment seems fairly clear, Secretary Acheson, on September 8, 1951, addressed a letter to Prime Minister Yoshida, in which he specifically raised the issue. He pointed out that Japan had rendered important assistance to the U. N. in the form of facilities and services made available to various U. N. members engaged in the Korean operation.

Since the future is unsettled

he wrote

and it may unhappily be that the occasion for facilities and services in Japan in support of United Nations action will continue or recur, I would appreciate confirmation, on behalf of your Government, that if and when the forces of a member or members of the U. N. are engaged in any U. N. action in the Far East after the treaty of peace comes into force, Japan will permit and facilitate the support in and about Japan, by the member or members, of the forces engaged in such U. N.

action . .

The Prime Minister's reply was completely reassuring on this point. Under date of September 8, 1951, he wrote Secretary Acheson, in part, as follows:

I have the honor, on behalf of my Government, to confirm that if and when the forces of a member or members of the United Nations are engaged in any United Nations action in the Far East after the treaty of peace comes into force, Japan will permit and facilitate the support in and about Japan, by the member or members of the forces engaged in such United Nations action, the expenses involved in the use of Japanese facilities and services to be borne as at present or as otherwise mutually agreed between Japan and the United Nations member concerned.3

1 Statement of Jan. 21, 1952; Japanese Peace Treaty and Other Treaties, etc... p. 15.

2 Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 17, 1951, p. 465.

3 Ibid.

Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea

23. TEXT OF TREATY, OCTOBER 1, 19531

The Parties to this Treaty,

Reaffirming their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area,

Desiring to declare publicly and formally their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area,

Desiring further to strengthen their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive and effective system of regional security in the Pacific area,

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

The Parties undertake to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, or obligations assumed by any Party toward the United Nations.

ARTICLE II

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack. Separately and jointly, by self help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and to further its purposes.

ARTICLE III

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

1 TIAS 3097; 5 UST 2368-2376. Ratification advised by the Senate Jan. 26, 1954, and ratified by the President Feb. 5, 1954, subject to an understanding; entered into force Nov. 17, 1954.

SIANH

ARTICLE IV

The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement.

ARTICLE V

This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and the Republic of Korea in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Washington.'

ARTICLE VI

This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

DONE in duplicate at Washington, in the English and Korean languages, this first day of October 1953.

UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES 2

[The United States Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty subject to the following understanding:]

It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article III of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea.

[The United States communicated the text of the understanding to the Republic of Korea in a note of January 28, 1954, acknowledged by the Republic of Korea in a note of February 1, 1954. The text of the understanding was included in the President's proclamation of November 17, 1954.]

24. JOINT STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, AUGUST 8, 1953 3

Our friendly and understanding consultations demonstrate clearly the determination of the United States and the Republic of Korea to stand together in cordial cooperation to achieve our common objectives, including the reunification of Korea.

1 Ratifications were exchanged Nov. 17, 1954.

2 TIAS 3097.

3 S. Exec. A, 83d Cong., 2d sess.

« 上一頁繼續 »