December 30, 1951

Excellency:
Report is hereby made on the progress of the negotiation in the Korea-Japanese Conference which was opened on October 20, 1951, at Tokyo, Japan, enclosing the latest suggestions delivered by the Japanese delegation in the Sub-committee for Legal Status of the Korean Residents in Japan.
REPORT ON THE KOREA-JAPANESE CONFERENCE
PART I. GENERAL REMARKS
From the beginning of the Korea-Japanese Conference, which was opened on October 20, 1951, at Tokyo, Japan, it was found that there was a considerable difference of views between both sides. We deemed the conference as a peace conference among the two nations in a material meaning, intending, in this conference, to settle all the questions lying between the two countries, and thus to set a corner-stone for restoring the diplomatic relation between the two nations. On the contrary, the Japanese side had no such intention and was lacking in sincerity, simply intending to make us recognize that the Korean residents in Japan have the nationality of the Republic of Korea, and to listen to our opinion and assertion concerning the other problems pending among the two nations. They might keep aloof, under the control of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, from the negotiation with us, so that they could negotiate standing on a more advantageous position when Japan has resumed her sovereignty after the coming into force of the Peace Treaty.
Such being the circumstances, Japan was lacking in sincerity at the earlier days of the negotiation, always saying, “Not prepared”, to postpone any decision to be made in the talks. Japan, however, could not but change her arrogant attitude a month or more after the negotiation was commenced. The followings are considered to be the reasons for that:
(1) The U.S. good offices to lead the negotiation to success was reflexed in the Japanese Government.
(2) Whereas the conference is the first international conference followed by the Peace Conference at San Francisco, the development of the negotiation is to be deemed as a barometer of the Japan’s efforts for peace and democracy, and it is closely observed by all the democratic countries in the world, particularly by the countries in the south-east Asia.
His Excellency
President Syngman Rhee
Office of the President
Under the aforementioned situations, the negotiation made a considerable progress from a month or more after the opening of the conference. That is, the Japanese side gradually showed sincerity both in the sub-committee for Legal Status of the Korean Residents in Japan and the Sub-committee on Vessels, which had been organized. Even on the other problems ---- problems on property and claims, fisheries, commerce and navigation and submarine cable, they firmly promised to settle the questions finally in the coming February, taking back their spoken words “not prepared.”
PART II. SUB-COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL STATUS OF THE KOREANS IN JAPAN
As stated above, the Japanese delegation showed little sincerity at the earlier days of the conference, simply intending to make us recognize that the Koreans in Japan have the nationality of the Republic of Korea, in order to treat them as aliens imposing upon them every restriction to be imposed upon the other aliens in Japan generally. Against that, we claimed that the Koreans in Japan should be given a more favorable treatment than the other aliens, pointing out that they are such aliens as having a special status in Japan.
Though the Japanese side propagandized home and abroad, to better their position, saying the Korean assertion was “unreasonable”, we argued down, saying: “We never claimed that the Korean people in general be given a superior position to the other aliens, and will never object that the Koreans, who will enter and have entered since from August 9, 1945, are to be treated as well as the other aliens. Our claim is that you should recognize the established fact that the Koreans, who have been residing since the termination of the war, have a special and different status from the other aliens.” We made every efforts to convince the Japanese of the said fact and to make clear that our claim would never be against the principle of fair and justice or the international law.
1. Question on Nationality
As aforesaid, the Japanese intention, in this negotiation, was being limited in making us recognize that the Korean residents in Japan have the nationality of the Republic of Korea, making suggestions including the following three items.
1) The Korean residents in Japan shall lose the nationality of Japan and acquire the nationality of the Republic of Korea with the coming into force of the Peace Treaty.
2) The nationality of the Korean residents in Japan shall be decided upon the basis of Koseki(Census Register).
3) The naturalization of the Korean residents in Japan shall be subject to the Law of Nationality of Japan.
To the foregoing Japanese suggestions, we, pointing out that the question on who has the nationality of a state or the question of naturalization is a matter within the domestic jurisdiction on the international law, and is not to be discussed in the international negotiation, contended that the Korean government, responsible on the international law for the protection of the Korean nationals in Japan, should discuss in this negotiation on the treatment or legal status of them. Since that time, in the Sub-committee for Legal Status of the Korean Residents in Japan, treatment and legal status of the Korean residents in Japan have been more discussed than the question of their nationality.
2. Question of Permanent Residence
Concerning permanent residence permit for the Korean residents in Japan, the Japanese delegation asserted, at the beginning of the talks, that any Korean in Japan desiring permanent residence should apply for permission in accordance with the Japanese Immigration Control Order with payment of 2,000 Yen as fee, and in case an application has been made, the Japanese authorities any approve or disapprove the case by investigating: (1) whether or not the applicant has a record of good behavior, (2) whether or not he has sufficient property or ability to secure an independent livelihood, (3) whether or not the best interest of Japan is served by taking favorable action on the application. But in the course of argument, the Japanese delegation conceded their point so far as to say that the Japanese authorities will grant permanent residence for the Korean residents in Japan without any investigation or payment of fee, if they should apply for the permission along with a certificate of register to be issued by the Korean Diplomatic Mission in Japan and they are whereby identified, pursuant to the Alien Register, as having resided since before August 9, 1951.
The question of permanent residence is closely connected with the question of deportation. Deportation of the Koreans in Japan would be made mostly for the reason of being “a pauper, vagrant, or a disabled person or the like who has become a charge of the Government or a local public entity.” The Koreans, who are being furnished by the Japanese Government with money for their support in accordance with the “Protection of Livelihood Law”, are computed at approximately 60,000 and the total money paid to such Koreans amounts to 660,000,000 Yen. The Japanese Government has an intention to deport such Koreans gradually, except the ones who do not receive the money from the Japanese Government in spite of their poverty.
Here we fell into a dilemma. That is to say, if we should agree to the Japanese assertion that the Koreans should not be given the Government money or their support, there would be no Korean pauper to be deported for the reason of poverty, but, on the other hand, the livlihood of the paupers who must depend upon the Government money would be precarious. Such situation would furnish the Communists in Japan with the materials for slandering the Korean Government. It is to be remembered that the Communists are propagandizing about the livlihood-supporting money paid by the Japanese Government as if they won the result through their fighting. Accordingly, if the livlihood-supporting money should stop as a result of the Korea-Japanese negotiation at this time, it is as plain as the sun that the Korean Government would be open to criticism of the Communists. For all that, we cannot submit to deportation. Under these circumstances, we made suggestions:
1) to continue awarding the livlihood-supporting money to the Korean paupers
2) not to deport such beneficiaries for a period until they could maintain themselves.
Against the foregoing suggestions, the Japanese delegation defined their position, saying:
1) The Japanese promises to continue paying the livlihood-supporting money for a year more. From a year after, the Government money, if it be paid, will be paid not on the basis of the international treaty with the Republic of Korea, but at the discretion of the Government.
2) In case any Korean should be deported for the reason of being poverty for this one year, the Japanese Government would consult with the Korean authorities previously before any decision.
In such case, if the Korean authorities should take an action to protect him, he would not be deported.
Such being one of the vital questions in this negotiation, we expect a special instruction on the matter from the Government.
3. Question of Treatment
Concerning treatment of the Korean residents in Japan, the Japanese delegation stated that they would treat them as well as the other aliens after the Peace Treaty has come into force and they were ready to accord them the most favored nation treatment at the time of conclusion of a Korea-Japanese Commerce and Navigation Treaty. Our assertion was that the commerce and navigation treaty and so on is a question for the entrants to come into each of the two countries in future and therefore, not to be discussed in this negotiation. We claimed that our talks are to be focused on the treatment of the Korean residents in Japan who have been residing since before the termination of the war and have a special status. Whereas they are being granted national treatment except in franchises, we stated, they should be continuously given such treatment.
But the Japanese delegation further contended that if the Koreans in Japan should be given national treatment for ever, not pursuant to the Korea-Japanese Commerce and Navigation Treaty to be concluded here-after, it follows that two kinds of aliens are admitted in the territory of Japan, which is unprecedented in the international usage. Whereas the rights or qualifications, (e.g. rights of mining) which are now prohibited to the other aliens but enjoyed by the Koreans are vested rights, the Japanese stated, such rights can be enjoyed by them continuously while they are residing in Japan, provided that succession or transfer to non-Japanese of such rights should be prohibited, except in case the law or order otherwise provides.
It is considered to be unreasonable more or less to stick to our initial assertion that the Korean residents should be accorded national treatment for ever. It is, however, impossible to admit the Japanese suggestion as it stands, as such special rights are in danger of being unjustly infringed in case the owner should die suddenly. It will be, therefore, better to assert that even such rights as prohibited to the other aliens should be enjoyed by the Koreans for ten or thirty years at least. (We can find out the same precedent in the international law that in case a state which has permitted aliens to own land make a new legislation to prohibit it, the state used to permit the aliens who have been previous owners to enjoy the right continuously for ten or twenty-five years.)
A special instruction of the Government is requested also with reference to this question.
4. Repatriator’s Baggage and Remittance
Concerning this question, at the beginning of the conference, the Japanese delegation claimed that a repatriator’s baggage or remittance should be quitely limited in accordance with the Order for Export Control (movable property is limited to 4,000 1bs. and remittance to 100,000 Japanese Yen) and the Law of Foreign Exchange.
In opposition to the foregoing suggestions, the Korean delegation claimed as follows:
1) A repatriatior can freely export his baggage. No limit should be set to the quantity or description.
2) No tax should be imposed upon the exported baggage.
3) But in order to prevent smuggling under the reason of repatriator’s baggage, or transporting opium or gunpowder, another negotiation should be held between the two sides.
Although the Korean suggestions were stiffly opposed by the Japanese Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Japanese delegation admitted our suggestions on principle on condition that:
1) Such special treatment should be given for a fixed period.
2) Detailed discussion should be made by technicians of the two sides in regard to the prevention of smuggling and the method of remittance.
Concerning this question, there remained only the questions of the fixed period and detailed methods.
Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Yu Chin O
Republic of Korea delegation to the
Korea-Japanese Peace Conference.
　Republic of Korea chief-delegate
to the Sub-committee for Legal Status
of the Koreans Residents in Japan.