June 15, 1957 Saturday

SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE PRELIMINARY TAIKS AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL BETWEEN KOREA AND JAPAN - X
1. Time and place:
From 1:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., on June 15, 1957, at Kayukaikan, Sambancho, Tokyo.
2. Conferees:
The Korean side : Counsellor Kyu Hah Choi of the Korean Mission.
Third Secretary To Kyong Limb of the Korean Mission.
The Japanese side : Counsellor Miyake of the Japanese Foreign Office.
Mr. Suganuma, Chief of the First Section of the Asian Affairs Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
3. The gist of talks:
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
Let's read the final draft documents through so that we may have complete one ready it in ▣.
COUNSELLOR CHOI
No objection.
COUNSELLER MIYAKE
(Here Counsellor Miyake took out the Japanese draft and started reading it) I think that headinge of each document in capital letter without underline is preferable. What do you think about it ?
COUNSELLING CHOI
So do I.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
As to the annexed understanding, it is our practice that the initial of each other's delegate is usually inked instead of the full signature.
COUNSELLOR CHOI
I agree with you.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
As to the annexed understanding, agreed minutes, and the oral statement, I want to put capitalized confidential on the left upper side of each document.
COUNSELLOR CHOI
(After the telephone conversation with Ambassador Kim) So do I. In some documents, 'Korea' is used instead of 'the Republic of Korea', I would like to correct them into 'the Republic of Korea'.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
No objection,
COUNSELLOR CHOI
It has been already agreed that in the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Agreed Minutes, the sentence begins with "I understand..." Now that the Japanese side inserted a new phrase 'In this connection' without our knowledge and agreement. This phrase should be deleted.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
If my memory is correct, it has already been decided that the phrase 'In this connection' be inserted in the previous session to make the meaning of that paragraph clear to everybody. What does it make difference having this phrase in the final draft and not having it ?
COUNSELLOR CHOI
First of all, this phrase is not agreed to be inserted here. I think it is quite of no use at all too. Therefore, it should be deleted.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
If you inaist on having the phrase 'In this connection' be deleted, it may be deleted.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
In the Joint Communique, in the sentence which reads:
It has been agreed that the Government of Japan will release those Koreans who are detained at the Aliens Detention Camps in Japan and who have been residing in Japan since prior to the end of World War II.", the underlined part seems to me illogical to say nothing of the fact that it runs against the same part appeared in Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, I would like to propose that the underlined part should be amended as "those Koreans who have been residing in Japan since prior to the end of World War II and who are being detained at the Aliens Detention Camps in Japan".
COUNSELLOR CHOI
No objection on the condition that the communique will strictly follow the original wording of the draft memorandum itself.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
In the Joint Communique, the sentence reads : "it also withdraws its property claim aganist Korea which was made on March 6, 1957, on the basis of the Statement of the United States Government dated June , 1957.", the underlined part should be amended as "...it also withdraws the claim to property in Korea made by the Japanese Delegation at the Japan-Korea Talks on March 6, 1952..." in order to square it with the same part of the sentence appeared in the Note Verbale to be sent to Korean Mission by the Japanese side.
COUNSELLOR CHOI
No objection since it merely follows the same wording with the draft note verbale itself,
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
In the Memorandum of Understanding, there appears "Done in duplicate in Tokyo...". It is our general practice that at Tokyo is preferable. Do you have any objection to this ?
COUNSELLOR CHOI
I know that "at Tokyo" is more literary than "in Tokyo" in this case. In the Joint Communique, the last paragraph reads: "... it has been agreed that the overall talks between the Republic of Korea and Japan will be resumed on September 2, l957 in Tokyo." The underlined part seems to me very awkward from the viewpoint of English grammar. Therefore, the said sentence should be amended as "... resumed in Tokyo on September 2, 1957."
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
No objection. (Handing the Japanese text of the Oral Statement to Counsellor Choi) I understand that Foreign Minister Kishi will read the Japanese Oral Statement in Japanese before he hands it to Ambassador Kim together with English translation.
COUNSELLOR CHOI
I understand that the Oral Statement itself is drafted in English and has been already agreed upon. Therefore, it is quite natural that Foreign Minister Kishi should read it in English, and that the English text should be regarded as the official one.
COUNSELLOR MIYAKE
It is our general practice that all official documents are prepared in Japanese. Foreign Minister Kishi should, therefore, read the oral statement in Japanese.
COUNSELLOR CHOI
We cannot accept your proposal because your own Japanese version is slightly different from what is expressed in the English text. Since it is drafted in English, there will be no further question about reading it in English. Let's make this matter pending for a while.
Both sides agreed to meet next at 9 p.m. at the Director's office of the Asian Affairs Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Ministry.