June 14, 1957

SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE PRELIMINARY TAIXS AT THE A IMINSTRATIVE LEVEL BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND JAPAN - IX
1. Time and Place:
From 2:00 p.m., June 13, to 12:25 a.m., June 14, 1957, at the Kayu Kaikan(Foreign Ministry Club)at Kudan,Tokyo.
2. Conference:
Korean side:Mr. Yu Taik Kim, Ambassador, Chief of the Korean Mission,
Mr. Kyu hah Choi, Councelor of the Korean Mission,
Mr. Kibong Hah, Second Secretary of the Korean Mission.
Japanese side:Mr. Katsumi Ohno, Vice Minister, Foreign Ministry
Mr. Tooru Nakagawa, Director, Asian Bureau, Foreign Ministry
Mr. Kijiro Miyake, Counselor of Asian Bureau, Foreign Ministry
3. Background of the present session:
(This session was called, following the preliminary talks held on June 11-12. As a result of the said talks the Korean side regarded that there still were many points to be settled,thus necessitatating the present session, on the other hand,the Japanese side unilaterally considered that the matter was almost settled,only waiting for the final concurrence of the Korean Government. The Japanese press in the morning reported to such effect. Upon receipt of instructions of the Government cabled by Minister Yiu from Seoul, the current session was held. )
4. Proceedings:
AMBASSADOR KIM:
The Korean side has been disturbed by inaccurate press report in the Japanese newspapers, saying that the final settlement on the detainee issue and the resumption of the Korea-Japan talks has been made and that the Japanese Government is only awaiting the final reply from the Korean Government, etc. Such is not the case and it is regretted that the Japanese Government had done nothing to set the record straight in this regard.
MR. OHNO:
We do know why such a report was circulated. As you know, the Japanese Government has no control over the press and I really do not where the press got such information from.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
We called this meeting for the purpose of making the final draft on the detainee issue and the resumption of the formal talks between the two countries. As far as we are concerned, we want to reach agreement on the drafts, if it takes until after midni ht.
MR. OHNO:
The Japanese side has no objection.
Ⅰ. DETAINEE ISSUE MEMORANDUM
AMBASSADOR KIM:
We propose that the word: "after the end of World War II" be inserted after "the Korean Government will accept the departation of Korean illegal entrance", appearing in the draft memorandum of the mutual release of detainees.
MR. OHNO:
As I am not familiar with circumstances under which the original terminology has been adopted, I would rather have Director Nakagawa reply to your proposal. (Mr. Ohno send for Mr. Nakagawa and as the latter raised no objection to this proposal of the Korean side, the said proposal was agreed upon. )
AMBASSADOR KIM:
Regarding the order of the action by respective government in the memorandum concerning the detainee issue, the Korean side prefers that each side has its memorandum start with its own name.
COUNSELOR MIYAKE:
International practise shows that the heading of the memorandum may be made that way but text itself should be the same in both memorandum.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
In the case,　would Japan has no objection to making the draft of the text itself mention the Japanese side first?　In other words,　we put in the first paragraph,　"the Government of Japan will release those Koreans, etc. "and in the second paragraph," the Government of the Republic of Korea will repatriate, etc. "
MR. OHNO:
I suggest that the actions to be taken by the respective governments should not be numbered, because such actions should be simultaneous and, if numbered, they might be interpreted as chronological. The title, however, can be changed by eachside to indicate its own side first.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
It is agreeable.
(Counselor Miyake then expressed the hope that the Korean side favorably consider Japan's desire to have a certain number of Japanese fishermen due to complete their sentence on June 16 included among those to be repatriated by virture of the agreement, even if the agreement was to be signed on June 15. Ambassador Kim stated that he could not make any commitment in this regard, except saying that he would see what he could do about it. )
II. ANNEKED UNDERSTANDING
AMBASSADOR KIM:
In the last sentence there is a mention about "initial period", etc. The Korean side proposes that the word "initial period" be stricken out of the text. Or in case it is found difficult to do so by Japan, I suggest that stronger meaning than mere "necessity for the help for their livelihood. . . "be used.
MRSRRS. OHNO AND MIYAKE:
It is spite difficult to comply with the Korean Request, for it touched upon the general subject concerning the Korean residents in Japan. The Japanese side cannot afford to take care of the livelihood for the released for ever.
(Mr. Nakagawa entered the room at this stage. After briefed on what took place before he came in, he stated that there was nothing wrong in inserting the word "after the end of World WarII" after Korean illegal entrants", in the memorandum concerning the detainee issue. Thus, the Korean suggestion was accepted, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. )
AMBASSADOR KIM:
(After listening to a long explanation by the Japanese side on why it is difficult to have the word "initial period"stricken out, he consented to keep the original word in the text. )
III. NOTE VERBALE CONCERNING WITHDRAWL OF KUBOTA STATEMENT AND JAPANESE PROPERTY CLAIMS
AMBASSADOR KIM:
In this regard I propose that the wording of the Note Verbale from Japan should be made, for simplicity's sake, as follows:
The Government of Japan withdraws the remarks made by Mr. Kanichiro Kubota, Chief of Japanese Delegate, on October 15, 1953. "
DIRECTOR NAKAGAWA:
The said remarks, I admit, infuriated the Korean side. However, as far as the Japanese Government is concerned, they are not official remarks. In addition,it is necessary to retain the original explanatory prase in the sense of face-saving on the part of the Japanese Government.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
Also, regarding the latter half of the Note Verbale, I propose that it should only say: "the Government of Japan hereby withdraws the claim to property in Korea made by the Japanese delegation on March 6, 1952, on the basic of the "Statement on the US Position of Interpretation of Article 4 of the Japanese Peace Treaty with Respect to Korean-Japanese Claims Settlement". It is much simpler and clear cut.
MR. OHNO:
This Note Verbale has been worded as it is now, after much discussion due to objections raised by other Ministries concerned and it seems difficult to comply with the Korean request.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
At my meeting with Prime Minister Kishi the other day, he agreed to settle the matter from overall standpoint. And I do not think it is difficlut to comply with our request,if the Japanese side really meant it.
MR OHNO:
I believe it depends on which idea of the alternative in Item 4 Agreed Minute the Korean side will take. Because, depending on w▣...▣ the Korean side adopts,the Korean side might end in making no mention intention regarding the us memorandum.
(Thus both sides decided to set aside the wording problem on the withdrawl of property claims for a while. )
IV. MEMORANDUM CONCERNING RESUMPTION OF OVERALL TALKS BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND JAPAN
AMBASSADOR KIM:
Instead of following the formula that the Korean side proposes the resumption of the overall talks and the Japanese side accepts it, I think it better to adopt the form of memorandum which both sides sign. I will read the text of the Korean draft of this memorandum:
The Government of the Republic of Korea and Government of Japan have agreed to resume the overall talks between the Republic of Korea and Japan at the time and place designated below:
Time: September 2, 1957
Place: Tokyo
Done in duplicate in Tokyo, this day of June, 1957
For the Government of the Republic of Korea:
For the Government of Japan:"
MR OHNO:
It is acceptable.
V. AGREED MINUTES
AMBASSADOR KIM:
With regard to the length of time allowed by each side to complete respective release of the detainees, it seems unfair that the Korean side is given only one month and Japanese side has two months. I think it should be the same length of time.
DIRECTOR NAKAGAWA:
It takes longer to release the Korean detainees at Omura and other Japanese detention camps, bacause of consideration of their living after the release, etc. Therefore, the Justice Ministry will have to be checked beforehand.
MR. OHNO:
Let us make it one and a half months each other, so we both will have the same length of time to act.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
It is agreed, to make it one and a half months after the coming into force of the memorandum concerning the detainee issue.
(At this point the meeting was recessed due to Amb. Kim's meeting with Premier Kishi scheduled for 4:00 p. m. )
(The meeting was thus adjourned 4:50 p. m. )
(The meeting was reopened at 5:45 p. m. )
AMBASSADOR KIM:
Regarding the clause concerning the agenda for the formal conferene I propose that the Peace Line issue be included as a separate item. In other words, a. Peace Line and b. Conclusion of a fishery agreement to provide for measures to prevent fishing disputes and to conserve fishery resources.
MR OHNO:
(At this point a suggestion was made by the conferees that all the words appearing in the draft documents, reading "Formal Conference be changed uniformly to "overall talks". And, this suggestion has been agreed upon by the conferees. )
Japan is firmly opposed to the idea of Korea's fishing conservation one's from international angle and in case sue accepts the Korean proposal in this regard, it contradicts this basic stand of the Japanese Government. Therefore, the maximum line Japan can say is: The so-called Peace Line. "
AMBASSADOR KIM:
The so-called, etc. is absolutely not acceptable.
MR. OHNO:
Then,how about making it one item, saying: "fishery issue, including the so-called Peace Line, etc. "
AMBASSADOR KIM:
I insist that two separate items be provided in the agenda.
MR. OHNO:
Its item is the last line to quote Peace Line. The Japanese side will desire it, if the word:"The so-called" be left alone.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
We have to desire the word: "The so-called" and "fisheries and Peace Line" should be two separate items.
MR. OHNO:
How about fisheries and "Peace Line" as the title No.3: and then we will divide the two items into two sub-items?
AMBASSADOR KIM:
Then, the result will be as follows:
3) Fisheries and Peace Line":
a. Matters concerning "Peace Line,"
b. Matters concerning the conclusion of a fishery agreement to provide for measures to prevent fishing disputes and conserve fishery resources.
Mr. OHNO
Yes, it is a sort of compromise, because in Sub-items, matters concerning "Peace Line" Comes as item(a).
AMBASSADOR KIM:
If the Japanese side strongly insists upon it, it seems to be all right.
Ⅵ. NOTE VERBALE CONCERNING WITHDRAWAL OF KOREA STATEMENT AND JAPANESE PROPERTY. CLAIM
AMBASSADOR KIM:
(Amb. Kim read the Korean draft in this regard:)
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs notified the Korean Mission as follows:
The Government of Japan retracts the statement made by Mr. Kanichiro Kubota, Chief Japanese Delegate, on October 15, 1953, against which the Koreans delegation protested. Further, the Government of Japan, on the basis of the "Statement of the US Position on the Interpretation of Article 4 of Japanese Peace Treaty with Respect to Korean-Japanese Claims Settlement", hereby withdraws the claim to property in Korea made by the Japanese delegation at the Korea-Japan Conference on March 6, 1952. "
MR. OHNO:
We want the phrase, on the basis of, etc., at the end of the sentence, and further the US statement clearly dated. And also, instead of using the word:". . . retract the statement",how about," withdraws the remarks made. . . "?
AMBASSADOR KIM:
I have no objection. Also, regarding the Agreed Minutes Item 4, the Korean side will take the second idea(at the preliminary talks held on June 11-12, two alternative ideas were suggested and decision was to be made this matter at the present meeting. Refer to Page 3 and 4 of the Summary Record of the June 11-12 Session-Ⅷ. )
MR. OHNO:
Necessary alteration will have to be made, then.
Final draft of Note Verbale should read Note Verbale(from Japan)
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Korean Mission in Japan and has the honor to notify the latter as follows:
The Government of Japan withdraws the remarks made by Mr. Kanichiro Kubota, Chief Japanese Delegate, on October 15, 1953, against which the Korean delegation protested. Further, the Government of Japan hereby withdraws the claim to property in Korea made by the Japanese delegation at the Japan-Korea talks on March 6, 1952, on the basis of the "Statement of US Position on the Interpretation of Article 4 of the Japanese Peace Treaty with Respect to the Korean-Japanese Claims Settlement", dated June, 1957. "
And the Japanese side has to have at least a note of acknowledgement from the Korean side, according to international practise. Such note should read:
Note Verbale from Korea
the Korean Mission in Japan presents its compliments to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ▣...▣ the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Note Verbale ▣...▣, lated, 1957. "
AMBASSADOR KIM:
It is accepted.
Ⅶ. ORAL STATEMENT
(Considerable arguments have been exchanged between the two parties on this matter, particularly over the period of transfer of Korean art objects. Finally, the Japanese side agreed to make the text read:" at an early possible date", instead of "as soon as practicable", as originally suggested by the Japanese side. )
AMBASSADOR KIM:
Aside from the agenda of the overall talks between Japan and the Republic of Korea, the Government of Japan will turn over to Korea, at an early possible date, those Korean art objects now in its possesion of which the immediate is possible. "
MR. OHNO:
It is agreed.
Ⅷ. AGREED MINUTES CONCERNED KOREAN PROPERTY CLAIM
AMBASSADOR KIM:
we may accept the US memorandum on the condition that the Japanese side gives the assurances that it would discuss and settle the Korean claim against Japan ▣▣▣ with sincerity and that the Japanese side also recognizes that the Japanese side does not propose the so-called reciprocal renunciation of the property claims.
In this connection, I conferred with Mr. Kishi and he agreed with my view. Therefore, I hope that your side will agree to the formulation of the commitment made by Prime Minister Kishi in the present draft agreed minutes which should be recorded item 4 of Agreed Minutes.
MR. OHNO:
I also heard that you met Mr. Kishi but as far as I know it is obvious that every a prime minister cannot change the basic policy of the Japanese Government at his own discretion. But after careful consideration of Mr. Kishi's words, we have made the following draft to be inserted as Item 4 of the draft Agreed Minutes:
4) Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan
The Government of Japan is prepared to negotiate with the Government of the Republic of Korea as regards the issue of the property claim on the basis of the "Statement of US Position on the Interpretation of Article 4 of the Japanese Peace Treaty with Respect to Korean-Japanese Claims Settlement" which was forwarded to both government by the governments by the US Government on June, 1957. I Understand, however, The statement of the US Government does not predatermine mutual ▣▣▣ver of the Japanese and Korean claims and that the Japanese side will discuss with sincerity the Korean claims at the overall talks to be reopened."
The Chief of the Korean Mission in Japan:
The Government of the Republic of Korea acknowledge the above intention of the Japanese Government and he prepared to negotiate with the Government of Japan as regards the issue of property claims on the basis of the said statement of the Government of United States at the overall talks. "
AMBASSADOR KIM:
In the first place it is too long and it is regretted that you tried to put the words, the Japanese Government is prepared to negotiate with the Korean Government, etc, while the Korean side wishes to see those words deleged completely even in the Note Verbales on the withdrawl of the property claims, threrfore, the implication of the draft proposal seems to be that you will change Prime Minister Kishi's attitude entirely. Under these circumstances I am obliged to make the following counter-proposal:
4) Chief of the Korean Mission in Japan:
In connection with the Korean claim against Japan and Japanese nationals, the Korean side would like to submit for discussion and settlement at the overall talks to be resumed, the same proposal that it had submitted at the previous talks.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan:
In such case the Japanese side will discuss and settle such Korean claims with sincerity.
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan:
I understand that in regard to the "Statement of US Position..., "the Government of the Republic of Korea is also of the same opinion. I further understand that the said US Statement doesnot signify reciprocal renunciation of the property claim.
Chief of the Korean Mission in Japan:
So do I. "
Let us decide on the Note Verbale on the withdrawl of the property claims.
MR. OHNO:
Your proposal on the Note Verbale on the withdrawl of the property claims,which is very simple one, is acceptable.
In regard to your proposal on Item 4 of the draft Agreed Minute, we wish to make the following change:
With regard to the Korean claim against Japan and Japanese nationals, since it is very clear that the "Korean claims" themselves refer to Korean claims against Japan and Japanese nationals, I do not think it necessary to say "against Japan and Japanese nationals. "We also would like to see the word: "settlement" deleted from the text.
In regard to the us memorandum, the clause :the Korean Government is also of the same opinion", is too vague and, therefore, I would suggest that "The Korean side is also of the same opinion with said statement", be used. You simply say,"So do I". But I prefer the expression, "It is also understanding. "
AMBASSADOR KIM:
As regards your counter-proposal to delete the word: "against Japan and Japanese nationals", it is acceptable on the condition that Korean claims mean those against Japan and Japanese nationals, as you stated, We might also agree to you proposal that we would add the word," with the said statement" after "the same opinion", etc. We also accept your wording: "it is also my understanding", however, we cannot agree to your proposal that the words "settle" or "settlement" be deleted from the text of the Agreed Minutes completely
MR. OHNO:
We may add the word "settlement" in the first paragraph of the draft Agreed Minutes Item 4, but we cannot agree to adding "settle" or "settlement" to the second paragraph that in such case the Japanese Government will discuss, etc.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
We got to see the word "settle"in one form or another inserted in the Agreed Minutes Item 4.
MR. OHNO:
We cannot accept it.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
In such case we cannot but postpone the final drafting of the documents and I must see Mr. Kishi again. In such case, I cannot guarantee that I would submit the draft documents by the pouch on June 14.
(However, the Japanese side conferred among themselves at the critical stage and formulated a plan which might be acceptable to Ambassador Kim. A long discussion and hot debate were exchanged. )
MR. OHNO:
In the expectation that the draft agreement may be signed before Mr. Kishi's daparture for the US, we will make the final concession on this point. This is the last line of the Japanese Government and I will read the compromise plan:
In such case the Japanese side will discuss such Korean claims with sincerity.
I hope you will accept this one.
AMBASSADOR KIM:
(After consulting his aids, including Counselor Choi, on this question and it took quite a while and made the following remark. )
Well, it is not sufficient. We must see the word "settle" or "settlement" somewhere in the Agreed Minutes. This is very important from our past experience, because even in those days you agreed to discuss our claim but the result was such that we all know about. Therefore, I insist upon the insertion of such words: as "settle" or "settlement".
MR. OHNO:
(Consulting his own assistants for a long time and finally answered)
If the Korean side agrees that instead of the word: "the Korean side will discuss such Korean claims with sincerity," the word "the Japanese side has no objection to discussing such Korean claim with sincerity, is accepted, then the Japanese side might consider the word "for settlement" which may be inserted after the word "to discussing".
AMBASSADOR KIM:
In that case, I understand the purpose of discussion of the Korean claims is not simply for the sake of discussion but for settlement. With the above-mentioned understanding we might accept your suggestion.
MR. OHNO:
Then the compromise clause will read:
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan:
In such case the Japanese side has no objection to discussing for settlement such Korean claims with sincerity. "
AMBASSADOR KIM:
As I said before, with the understanding that the purpose of discussion of the Korean claims is to settle them, the so-called compomise plan is accepted.
IX. JOINT COMMUNIQUE
(The following draft of joint communique was suggested and was accepted by both sides. )
JOINT COMMUNIQUE
At a meeting between Ambassador Yu Taik Kim, Chief of the Korean Mission in Japan, and Mr. Nobusuke Kishi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, on June, 1957, it has been agreed that the Government of Japan will release those Koreans who are being detained at the Aliens Detention Camps of Japan and who have been residing in Japan since prior to the end of World War II and that the Government of the Republic of Korea will repatriate Japanese fishermen detained at the Aliens Detention Camp in Korea and also will accept the deportation of Korean illegal entrants after the end of World War II.
At the same time, the Government of Japan has notified the Government of the Republic of Korea that it withdraws the remarks made by Mr. Kanichiro Kubota, chief Japanese delegate, on October 15, 1953, and that it also withdraws the claim to property in Korea made by the Japanese delegation on March 6, 1952, on the basis of the statement of the US Government, dated June, 1957. As a result, it has been agreed that the overall talks between the Republic of Korea and Japan will be resumed on September 2, 1957, in Tokyo.
(After both sides decided to meet again on June 15 for proof reading of all these draft documents, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m., June 14. )