REVIEW OF NEGOTIATION AT SUB-COMMITTEE ON VESSELS THE FOURTH KOREA-JAPAN CONFERENCE
Prepared By Political Affairs Bureau

October 10, 1958

1. During the period from June 6 to July 19, 1958, nine meetings were held to discuss on the problem of vessels (at the Sub-Committee on Vessels, Committee on Korean Claims), failing to enter debate on substantial matter of the problem.
2. According to the government instructions, Oijung No.1851, our side had no objection to adoption of agenda items A,B,C and D as adopted on November 6, 1951. But our Delegation went farther than the instructions, proposing to the Japanese side that problems concerning return of Korean registered vessels (A) and return to Korea of vessels located in Korean waters on or since August 9. 1945 (B) be agenda items at the Sub-Committee. The Japanese side immediately countered our proposal insisting that return to Japan of five vessels on loan to Korea (C) and return to Japan of fishing vessels detained in Korea (D) be added to the agenda for the Sub-Committee. The Japanese side, at the same time, insisted that problems on 141 Japanese fishing boats captured by our side for violation of our Peace Line would be also taken up. Our delegation immediately refused the Japanese proposal saying that the Peace Line-violating Japanese fishing vessels were entirely beyond the competence of the Sub-Committee which was set up in the Committee on Korean Claims. This move was obviously along the line of Oijung 1851 which said, "The problem of Japanese fishing boats which have been confisoated by our Law...must not be subject for discussion at this Sub-Committee." (2nd session, June 11 )
3. At the third session held on June 19, the Japanese side said that the matter regarding the Peace-Line-violating fishing boats could probably be referred to higher level discussion between the two Chief Delegates for decision, and meanwhile the Sub-Committee could proceed with discussion of the other four items on the agenda. Our side continued to insist that the Japanese proposition itself was beyond the competence of the Sub-Committee.
4. At the 4th session held on June 21, the Japanese side came out to state that the Japanese side would report on this matter to its high level, unless otherwise decided by the high levels of both sides, it will not take up the matter at this Sub-Committee. The Japanese side added that it would not necessarily request the Korean side to give any concurrence or comment at this Sub-Committee, and then it proposed that the Sub-Committee proceed the meeting. Our side reserved comment reiterating our previous position.
5. At this stage, our Delegation was given instructions as follows:
(FT-079, June 27, 1958, 15:50) Recable MT-79 dated June 21, 1958. Needless to say, Government cannot allow such question on 141 Japanese fishing vessels. But it is not advisable at this stage for us to press the Japanese side for confirming this fact. Therefore, Delegation is instructed to merely take note of the Japanese proposal namely Unless otherwise decided by the high levels of both sides, it will not take up the matter at this Sub-Committee" so that the Sub-Committee may proceed. Discuss first agenda item A."
6. At the 5th session held on June 27 (10:30), our side took note of the Japanese remarks made at the previous session, saying that our side would interpose no objection to the proceeding with the adoption of agenda. Then, our side proposed to discuss and settle one by one the agenda items A and B. The Japanese side maintained that the agenda items C and D as adopted in 1951 should be included in the agenda of the Sub-Committee. Here, our side stated that if the Sub-Committee would discuss and settle the agenda items A and B, our side has no objection to adopting agenda items C and D as adopted in 1951, provided that agenda item D should be added with the word, 'as of November 6, 1951.' This proviso was presented by our negotiators at their own discretion and under no government instructions.
7. The two sides repeated their insistence at the meetings of the 6th session through 9th (July 19) without settling anything. The meeting could not but be adjourned for approximately 80 days due to the overall stalemate that was caused by the detainee dispute. The meeting was not resumed until October 7, 1958.