Tokyo, November 20, 1958

GIST OF TALKS TWENTIETH SESSION SUB-COMMITTEE ON VESSELS, COMMITTEE ON KOREAN CLAIMS
1. Time and Place:
November 19, 1958 (Wednesday)
3:00p.m. - 4:15p.m. at Rm.411,
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. Conferees:
Korean Side:
Mr. LEE Ho
Mr. CHEE Choul Keun Mr. CHIN Pil Shik Mr. MOON Chul Soon Mr. OHM Young Dal Mr. ROH Jae Won
Japanese Side:
Mr. AWASAWA Kazuo
Mr. TAKANO Tokichi Mr. YABE Masanobu Mr. HANDA Go
Mr. SUGANUMA Kiyoshi Mr. TSUCHIYA Minao Mr. YOSHIDA
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. Awasawa:
Now, let us open today's meeting. Though we have so far exhausted exchange of views on the legal basis of Korean claim to the vessels falling within the scope of Agenda A, both sides are of conflicting opinions on this problem. As this Sub-committee has to take up the problems of Agenda Items B,C, and D, any way I am of the opinion that we might as well proceed now to the problem of Agenda Item B, and then Items C and D subsequently so that we can enter into discussions on the overall problems of vessels.
Mr. LEE:
We have wasted too much time at this Sub-committee in reaching an agreement on the adoption of agenda items. And we were able to take up the problems now under discussion on vessels coming under the scope of Agenda A only after considerable degrees of concessions were made by the Korean delegation. Concerning the problem related to Agenda A, my delegation has fully explained the basis of Korean claim to the vessels coming under the scope of the said agenda item. Moreover, this question was fully discussed at previous Conferences between both sides. Therefore, it is with regret that the Japanese side repeat, the existence of conflicting views between two delegations.
My delegation requested the Japanese side to present the list of vessels to be returned to Korea under Agenda Item A because it thought that the Japanese side was in a better position to know the vessels falling under the scope of Agenda A. However, the request had not been met by the Japanese side, namely, the Japanese delegation had not presented the list of the vessels to be returned to Korean under Agenda A. Under these circumstances, in order to expedite the proceeding of our meetings, my delegation put forth a first list of 31 vessels which were falling under the scope of Agenda A, and, at the same time, which could easily be returned by Japan in view of the course of discussions made at the previous first, second, and third Korea-Japan Conferences. Of course, my delegation will submit in due course of time additional lists of the vessels to be returned by Japan under Agenda A. In view of the above, I would like to request the Japanese delegation to give a reply to the Korean side on the said list. And, as to the method of proceeding this Sub-committee, I can hardly understand your suggestion that we proceed with Agenda B without reaching an agreement on the problem of Agenda A as there exist discrepancies of opinions thereon between two delegations. Your suggestion runs counter to the principle of proceeding meetings.
Mr. Awasawa:
As I have repeatedly made clear, my delegation received and studied the list just for its own reference, The Japanese side thinks that the SCAPIN 2168 has no validity after the coming into force of San Francisco Peace Treaty. Moreover, as to SCAPIN 2168 itself, the Japanese side is of the opinion that the effect of the SCAPIN did not extend to Korea even before the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as it was only effective between Japan and the United States.
Mr. Lee:
I don't like to repeat the legal basis of Korean claims to the vessels falling under the scope of Agenda A. Nevertheless, as you bring it out again, I will say some words in this regard. Japan was obligated by the said SCAPIN to return the vessels of Korean registry to the Korean side. And Japanese side has not carried out its obligation yet. So, there is no denying that the obligation on the part of Japan still remains. Concerning the legal basis of the SCAPIN, I woulk like to tell you once more that it has a legal bearing in USAMGIK Ordinance No.33 and Articles 4(b) and 21 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
Mr. Awasawa:
It is the opinion of the Japanese side, as Mr. Takano has already told you, that the Japanese Government is not obliged legally to turn over such vessels. And with respect to Article 4, (b) which reads: "Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government...", the Japanese side recognized the dispositions of properties, which had actually or physically been made before the coming into force of the Peace Treaty. Therefore, it is not incumbent on Japan to return to Korea the vessels of Korean registry under Agenda A.
Mr. Lee:
According to USAMGIK Ordinance No.33 on which SCAPIN 2168 has legal bearings, the properties including vessels located in the area under the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government in Korea had been vested in and owned by the said Military Government, and, later, were duly transferred to the Republic of Korea under an agreement between Korea and the United States.
Mr. Lee(Cont'):
Those dispositions were recognized by Japan as lawful and affective ones under Article 4, (b) and Article 21 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, thereafter. This being the just and equitable interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Treaty and other related laws and regulations, it will result in denying by Japan the effectiveness of Article 4,(b) and Article 21 of the Peace Treaty themselves if the Japanese side should uphold such an interpretation on the dispositions of properties.
Mr. Awasawa:
The Japanese side views that only the properties which had actually been disposed of and transferred to Korea by the Military Government of the United States in Korea fall under Article 4,(b) and Article 21 of the said Treaty; therefore, those vessels which fall under the scope of Agenda A and which had not been disposed of actually by the US Military Government in Korea before the coming into force of the afore-said Treaty shall not be recognized as falling within the scope of the said Articles of the Peace Treaty. Therefore, my delegation cannot acquiesce in the insistence by the Korean delegation.
Mr. Lee:
Such an interpretation as was made by the Japanese delegation can hardly be understood under the legal theories of a civilized community.
Mr. Awesawa:
Rather, my delegation can hardly understand why the Korean side is not able to understand Japanese view.
Mr. Takano:
My delegation holds the view that we might as well proceed with Agenda B and Agenda items C and D, subsequently, as the discrepancies of views have not been solved in connection with the legal basis of the Korean claims against Japan to Korean registry vessels under Agenda A, so that we can discuss overall problems of vessels. On the other hand, your delegation maintains that we should enter into the discussions on the problem under Agenda B only after we settle the questions of the vessels coming under the scope of Agenda A. Thus the discrepancies of opinions have come into being between both delegations regarding the method of proceeding this Sub-committee. Well, do you have any effective and constructive suggestion in your mind in this connection ?
Mr. Lee:
We have so far wasted a considerable period of time since we entered into discussions of the problems of vessels, and of agenda items. Therefore, I think we had better make efforts to proceed our meetings more effectively and promptly, hereafter, than before. Furthermore, in the light of the principle of proceeding meetings, it is not reasonable for us to enter into discussions of the problem related to Agenda B without settling any of the problems falling under the scope of Agenda A.
Such being the position of the Korean side, I urge you once more that we take up the problems of Agenda items B,C, and D subsequently only after we settle the question of Agenda A.
Mr. Awasawa:
My delegation entertains an opinion that to take up the problema of other Agenda items, as there exist discrepancies of opinions on the question of Agenda A between both delegation, is the one of the methods of proceeding our meetings. The views thus exchanged between both delegations would certainly help us sattle the issue connected with Agenda A on which we could not reach an agreement now.
Mr. Lee:
I don't agree to your opinion of proceeding our meetings. The best way of proceeding this Sub-committee meeting, in the opinion of my delegation, is to proceed with next problem after the settlement of the problem of Agenda A one after another.
Mr. Awasawa:
We had an experience of following the method I just suggested. So, I hope we might as well go after this method once more.
Mr. Lee:
It is not clear to me whether both delegations of Korea and Japan followed such a method in the past; however, if it was the case, I think, that was why they were not able to attain any of noticeable results at the previous Conferences. Therefore, for the purpose of reaching satisfactory settlement of pending issues of vessels, it is believed that we should not go after the previous method but go along with the method which I have repeatedly maintained.
Mr. Awasawa:
We have to take up the problems of Agenda items B, C, and D anyway, don't we ?
Mr. Lee:
Of course, we will take up the questions of Agenda items B, C, and D in due course of time. Nonetheless, question is the order of discussions. I firmly ask your delegation to solve the problem of Agenda A before we enter into next problem.
Mr. Lee:
I am of the opinion that this problem can easily be settled should the Japanese side have sincerity. Please show sincerity in settling this problem coming within the scope of Agenda A.
Mr. Awasawa:
My delegation is showing full sincerity.
-- Silence for 15 minutes --
Mr. Lee:
When shall we hold next meeting?
Mr. Awasawa:
How about next Tuesday (November 25th)?
Mr. Lee:
Can't we meet earlier than that?
Mr. Awasawa:
The schedule of my delegation is quite tied up until the date.
Mr. Lee:
Well, then, next Tuesday will do, And what time?
Mr. Awasawa:
3 p.m.
Mr. Lee:
No objection. And as to press release, how about releasing some details of talks?
Mr. Awasawa:
We like to release the same as was released at the previous meeting.
Mr. Lee:
No objection.
(Remark) Press release agreement between both delegations was same as the previous one.

- The end -