LONDON -- In the light of the recent rape case in Okinawa, I have some sympathy for the Japanese wish to extend further their rights to exercise full criminal jurisdiction in cases involving American forces in Japan. The American authorities need to understand the historical background to Japanese sensitivities over extraterritoriality, but the Japanese, for their part, should also realize that the Americans too have some justification for their reluctance to make further changes in the jurisdiction clauses of the Status of Forces Agreement.

The first treaties between the Western powers and Japan in 1858, under which the treaty port system was established and which provided for foreign jurisdiction over foreign nationals in the treaty ports, were execrated by Japanese from the beginning for their extraterritorial clauses, which were understandably regarded as humiliating.

Revision of the "unequal treaties," as these treaties came to be described, dominated Japanese diplomacy in the first 25 years of the Meiji Era. Looking back on these years, I think that the British, in particular, should have been able to come to some arrangement with Japan earlier than they did, but compromise was difficult because public opinion in Japan was whipped up against any kind of concession to the hated foreigner. Inouye Kaoru's attempt to work out a compromise failed, as did that of Shigenobu Okuma because of violent opposition. Indeed, Okuma was attacked by a "soshi" (a rough and violent man) and as a result lost a leg.