693.941/4–1452: Telegram
No. 555
The Chargé in the Republic of China
(Rankin) to
the Department of State1
niact
1315. In meeting between Chi and Jap dels treaty yesterday difference in wording scope of application clause as between second Chinese suggestion of Sept 26 (mytel 419, Sept 27)2 and Yoshida letter to Dulles threatened create major stumbling block. Chi draft which apparently suggested phrasing in Yoshida letter (Deptel 531 Jan 17) refers to territories which are now and which may hereafter etc. Actual text of Yoshida letter, however, refers to territories which now or which etc.
In response to FonMin’s query what Japs meant by “or” it became evident that Jap del was reading much into this choice of words re future of Formosa and possibly sovereignty over such islands as Kinmen [Quemoy].3
[Page 1242]Urgently request Dept’s interpretation above point.4
- Repeated for information to Tokyo.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. vi, Part 1, p. 1362.↩
- In telegram 1316 from Taipei, Apr. 14, repeated to Tokyo, Rankin in part reported: “Further inquiry indicates Chi–Jap differences over wording of scope of treaty’s application result from fact that both in Chi and Jap languages ‘or’ indicates degree of exclusivity which in English would be rendered ‘neither—or [nor]’.” (693.941/41452)↩
- In Topad 748 to Taipei, Apr. 14, repeated to Tokyo, drafted in CA and cleared in NA and FE, the Department referred the Embassy to telegram 579 (Document 502) and stated: “Dept does not believe that difference opinion over use word ‘and’ or ‘or’ should be any ‘stumbling block’.” (693.941/4–1452) However, in telegram 230 from Taipei to Tokyo, Apr. 15, repeated to the Department as telegram 1319, Rankin reported that the Japanese Delegation had indicated it would accept the Chinese position in the matter and that Yeh therefore did not want the position taken in Topad 748 conveyed to the Japanese Government. (693.941/4–1552)↩