Tokyo, November 27, 1958

GIST OF TALKS TWENTY-FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON VESSELS, COMMITTEE ON KOREAN CLAIMS
1. Time and Place:
November 25, 1958, 03:00 p.m, -- 04:10 p.m., at Room 411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
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. TAKANO Tokichi
Mr. YOSHIKAWA (Observer)
Mr. YABE Masanobu
Mr. HANDA Do
Mr. YOSHIDA
Mr. SUGANUMA Kiyoshi
Mr. TSUCHIYA Minao
1. Gist of Talks:
Mr. Takano:
Before opening today's meeting, I would like to tell you that Mr. Awasawa is not able to attend here because of unavoidable circumstances. So, I will head my delegation today on his behalf. And, Mr. Yoshikawa, a ceunsellor of the Bureau of Asian Affairs, will attend this meeting today as an observer.
At the last meeting, my delegation proposed that we might as well proceed to next agenda item as the conflicting views had not been solved between both sides on the problem falling under the scope of Agenda A. It is still the opinion of my delegation that such a method is the best way of proceeding our meetings. I wonder if your delegation has any good idea in this regard.
Mr. Lee:
I have repeatedly made clear that in the light of the standing rules of proceeding of meetings, to take up the problem of Agenda B only after we settle the problem coming within the scope of Agenda A is the best way of proceeding our meetings at this Subcommittee. Therefore, I would like to reiterate here that the Korean side expects a clear-cut answer to the first list of 31 vessels submitted by my delegation at the eighteenth session.
Mr. Takano:
The Japanese side has maintained that, as the opinions of both sides on the problem of Agenda A run counter to each other, this Subcommittee should proceed with the questions of Agenda B and, later, take up the problems of Agenda items C and D submequently, so that the both sides can exchange mutual views on overall problems of vessels and clarify the stand and claims of each side in this regard. This stand of the Japanese side remains unchanged,
Mr. Lee:
Though you say there exist discrepancies of views as to the legal basis of Korean claims to Korean registry vessels in Japan, I believe this question can be settled easily should the Japanese side show sincerity.
Mr. Takano:
My delegation has showed its sincerity to the fullest extent; however, unfortunately, we have not been able to iron out difference of opinions.
At the previous first, second, and third Korea-Japan Conferences, both sides had experiences of discussing overall problems of vessels. It is the belief of the Japanese side that to follow such a method of proceeding will be much helpful to the smooth operation of this Subcommittee.
Mr. Lee:
It is hardly understandable why the Japanese side persistently holds the view that there exist conflicting views in connection with the question of Agenda A, because we have fully explained on the legal basis of Korean claims.
Mr. Takano:
According to your opinion, there is no problem at all on the question of Agenda A, Nonetheless, my delegation holds that the conflicting views on this problem have not been ironed out. This being the opinions of both side, there exist the discrepancies of views on that very point,
Mr. Lee:
Suppose that there are discrepancies of opinions with respect to the problem falling under the scope of Agenda A, it is quite natural for the Korean side to expect an answer to the first list of 31 vessels which covers a part of the vessels coming within the scope of Agenda A. My delegation would present subsequent lists of the rest of the vessels concerned after a reply has been given to my delegation by the Japanese sides on the afore-said first list of the 31 vessels. In view of the above, I cannot agree to your suggestion that the Subcommittee proceed to the next agenda item leaving the problem of Agenda A unsettled.
Mr. Takano:
As long as there exist the discrepancies of opinions on the problem of Agenda A, my delegation is unable to give a clear-cut reply to the list of the vessels, submitted by the Korean side at the 18th session, covering only a part of the part of the vessels to which the Korean side claims against Japan.
(Silence for about ten minutes)
Mr. Lee:
My delegation is of the opinion that, as the four agenda items of this Subcommittee are not all in one but are of independent nature, the problem under an item should be settled before we enter into discussions of other question coming within the scope or next agenda item.
Moreover, although your delegation takes a view that the difference of opinions have not been ironed out, the legal basis of Korean claims under Agenda A has fully been discussed and we, therefore, reached almost the final state of settlement of the poblem. And further discussions on substance of Agenda A have yet to be made at this Subcommittee since full discussions were made on the legal basis of the Korean claims.
Mr. Takano:
If you say that the four agenda items of this Subcommittee are not all in one but are of independent ones from one another, then, it is all the more justified for us to proceed to naxt agenda item in case both side are unable to clear out the difference of opinions on the problem coming under the scope of certain agenda item.
Mr. Lee:
It seems to me that the Japanese side proposes that the problem of the vessels be settled as a whole after discussing through Agenda A, B, C, and D. I would like to hear the Japanese idea more in detail in this regard.
Mr. Takano:
Japanese idea is that, as there still exist discrepancies of opinions concerning the problem of Agenda A, we may as well proceed with the problems of Agenda B, C, and D, Subsequently, in order to exchange views of both sides and to clarify each other's stands and claims thereon.
Mr. Lee:
Then, do you mean that we simply exchange views and clarify positions of both sides with respect to the problems of other agenda items as well as Agenda A and that, thereafter, we settle the problems of vessels as a whole ?
Mr. Takano:
I meant that we exchange views and clarify the positions of both sides on the problems of Agenda B, C, and D, respectively, as there are existing1 conflicting views on the problem of Agenda A. And, later, we could return to the problem of Agenda A for the detailed discussions thereon when we proceed with conclusive talks on overall problems of vessels.
Mr. Lee:
I would like to ask you more in detail on your suggestion. Do you mean that we proceed with the problem of Agenda B and, thereafter, proceed to Agenda C, after simply exchanging views of both delegations and clarifying mutual positions in connection with the respective Agenda items, leaving the settlement thereof to the latest stage, or that when the both delegations fail to reach an agreement in opinions on the particular agenda item, then, we pass into the next agenda item, thus settling, at the latest stage, the remaining problems on which the both sides were unable to reach an agreement ?
Mr. Takano:
What do you mean by "settling" ?
Mr. Lee:
I mean by "settling" that both sides are in accord with each other on a certain problem falling under a certain agenda item.
Mr. Takano:
It is not likely that there should be one hundred per cent agreement of opinions between both delegation on a certain agenda at this Sub-committee. However, even though there are some discrepancies of opinions as to certain problem, both sides may be able to come to an agreement on the said certain problem. In that case, we may say that we settled the problem.
Mr. Lee:
I don't clearly understand whether your proposal means that we take up only those problems at the later stags of which both sides were unable to reach an agreement or that, after simply exchanging views of both sides and clarifying the positiou of each side on all of the problem of four agenda items, we discuss, in more detailed for, all over again on the overall matters under the four agenda items.
Mr. Takano:
Of course, if there in one hundred per cent agreement on certain problem, it may not be necessary for us to take up the problem again. Nevertheless, as far as both sides could not be able to reach a full agreement on certain problem, we shall have to proceed with it again.
Mr. Lee:
Your suggestion gives me an impression that you would not settle the problem one by one in accordance with the order of agenda items, leaving every problem unsettled by simply exchanging views of both sides and clarifying the positions of both sides on it, and, later, we start discussing them all over again.
Mr. Takano:
(Silence)
Mr. Lee:
In the light of the rules of proceedings, I believe the method which my delegation has repeatedly put forward at this Subcommittee is the most proper one for the smooth proceeding of our meetings here. Therefore. I would like to ask the Japanese side to consider its position again.
Mr. Takano:
The Japanese side, for its part, believes that the way of proceeding our meetings which my delegation suggested was the best one for the affective proceeding of meetings of this Subcommittee.
Mr. Lee:
(Silence)
Mr. Takano:
Let us study on mutual positions later and put an end to today's session.
Mr. Lee:
When shall we hold next session ?
Mr. Takano:
How about next Tuesday and at the same time ?
Mr. Lee:
Can't we meet earlier than the date ?
Mr. Takano:
The schedule on the part of the Japanese side is full tied up until the date.
Mr. Lee:
Well, then. that date will do.
Mr. Takano:
As to press release, shall we follow the precedents ?
Mr. Lee:
That will be all right.

- The end -