Senate Debates Ratification

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29238, 23 June 1960, Page 15

Senate Debates Ratification

(Rec. 10 p.m.) WASHINGTON, June 22.

The United States Senate is set to ratify the new United States-Japanese Security Treaty by an overwhelming majority today.

Ratification oi the controversial treaty was expected shortly after noon. Only one Senator is on record as definitely opposing it He is Senator Russell Long (Democrat, Louisiana), who said last night that he would vote against it on the ground that the treaty did not commit Japan to act in the event of an armed attack against the United States. The treaty, signed in Washington last January 19, replaced a pact signed in 1951, when Japan was still an occupied Power, and permits American forces to remain in Japan for at least a further 11 years. Under the treaty, the parties agreed that an attack against either in the territory under the administration of Japan would be regarded by the other as a danger to its own safety. Both countries agreed to act to meet the common danger under their constitutional processes.

The Senate debated the treaty for seven hours yesterday, but decided to postpone a vote until today. It accepted the suggestion of the Democratic leader (Senator Lyndon Johnson) that 30 minutes of debate should be allotted today to fnal arguments for and against ratification of the treaty. While Senator Long was the only member to announce his negative vote in advance, other Southern Democrats expressed reservations about the value of the treaty to the United States. Senator John McClellan, of Arkansas, argued that Japan could veto the movement of American troops to meet emergencies in the Far East and therefore could become a hindrance, not an ally, in an emergency. Admission by Herter

Earlier, the Secretary of State (Mr Herter) conceded that the United States had misjudged how unrelenting the rioting against the new treaty would be. Nor was it expected that the mobs would be so large, he said. But Mr Herter replied “no’ when asked by Senators if his day-to-day information was poor about the riots, which forced the Japanese Government to cancel its invitation to President Eisenhower to visit Japan. Mr Herter made a strong plea that the Senate act quickly to ratify the treaty. It would assure Japan of United States protection. under more favourable conditions for itself than at present over the next 10 years and would permit United States base? to stav on Japanese soil. Senator Johnson asked Mr Herter why Mr Eisenhower waited until the last minute to call off his visit to Japan. Mr Herter said every indication from the beginning was that the rioting was bv a minority. He added that it was up to the Janane** to deter-

mine whether the President could safely visit the country. Mr Herter agreed that his department did not expect the rioting to be so long drawn out or the mobs to be so huge.

“So your judgment was poor?” Senator Johnson asked.

“Yes, we misjudged that.” Mr Herter replied. Senator Johnson recalled that warnings about Mr Eisenhower going ahead with his visit to Japan had been -ounded by Senator Fulbright and Senator Richard Russell (Democrat, Georgia), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Their recommendations were rejected?” Senator T ohnson asked. "Yes.” Mr Herter said. He added that he would go more fully into the whole situation behind closed doors.

Mr Herter said President Eisenhower was abandoning personal high-level diplomacy and planned no further goodwill trips to other countries. He told the sub-committee that the Administration would return to “traditional channels and procedures of international contact”sand put increasing emphasis on these procedures as a means to better relations with the Soviet Union and to “resolve outstanding issues." When Senator Johnson demanded to know who made the “incorrect evaluation" about the extent of the Japanese riots. Mr Herter said that “from all the information we received it was a collective judgment; but you can pin it on me if you like. Mr Herter said the withdrawal by Japan of its invitation to Mr Eisenhower had been a„ very unfortunate development.