Tokyo, November 28, 1958

THIRTEENTH SESSION COMMITTEE ON LEGAL STATUS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time and place: 10:30-12:25 a.m, November 24,1958, Rm. 411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2, Conferees:
Korean side: Mr. CHOI, Kyu Hah
Mr. EA, Chai Hang
Mr. CHIN, Pil Shik
Mr. MOON, Chul Soon
Mr. ROH, Jae Won
Mr. OHM, Young Dal
Japanese side: Mr. KATSUNO, Yasusuke
Mr. HIRAGA, Kenta
Mr. HIRAZUKA
Mr. SHIMIZU, Shiro
Mr. HASEGAWA, Shinzo
Mr. NAKAGAWA, Toyokichi
Mr. NAGAHASHI, Hisa
Mr. SUGANUMA, Kiyoshi
Mr. TSUCHIYA, Minao
Mr. IKEBE. Ken
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. KATSUNO:
With regard to the Korean counter-question in connection with Articles 4 and 5 of the Korean proposal, we are still conducting researches in order to collect the whole data as to the treatments which the Korean residents in Japan are now enjoying actually in connection with the said articles. Since the matter is related with other Ministries concerned, we require a certain time before we finish the complete collection of the data concerned.
Mr. CHOI:
Have you any other thing to say?
Mr. KATSUNO:
No, for today. I want to listen to your comment on the questions raised by Mr. Hiraga at the previous session.
Mr. CHOI:
If so, I would like to give my comment in connection with some of questions submitted by Mr. KATSUNO at the eleventh session and also by Mr. HIRAGA at the twelfth session.
First of all, concerning Mr. Katauno's questions regarding Article 6 (1) of the draft agreement, the ground on which the said proposal was made was that Korean residents in Japan could return to the Republic of Korea without limitation of time. Therefore, Mr. Katsuno's "position" that there should be a certain limited period during which neither customs duties nor any other charges may be imposed on those movables which repatriating Korean residents will take with them to the Republic of Korea, is not justified, not only in the light of the principle that their property right should constantly be respected but also in view of the fact that their freedom to return to the Republic of Korea with their properties will not be substantially restricted by limitation of the period.
Secondly, with regard to Mr. Katsuno's "understanding" that, concerning Article 6 (2) of the draft agreement, the amount of the fund to be remeitted to the Republic of Korea by repatriating Korean residents will also be subject to "seperate negotiations", I have to make it clear that there should be no restriction placed upon the amount of the fund which the repatriating Korean wishes to remit to the Republic of Korea. It may frequently happen that repatriating Koreans want to remit not only the cash in hand, but also proceeds from their movables or immovables which they may dispose of in Japan, when they want to repatriate to the Republic of Korea. In such case, it is quite natural that the funds mentioned above should be remitted to the Republic of Korea by the repatriating Koreans without any restriction placed on the amount of money to be remitted to the Republic of Korea. If there were to be any restriction placed upon the amount of funds to be remitted by repatriating Koreans, it would be tantamount to restriction on their property right itself, and, further, could not but be an indirect way of forcing them to give up their due property rights in the long run.
Also, I must make it clear that there should be no arbitrary measures employed by the Japanese Government authorities concerned in their remitting of funds to the Republic of Korea. In this connection I would like to remind the Japanese side that it would also be arbitrary measures that the repatriating Koreans are forced to purchase so-called national bond, to pay various charges, or to make the so-called fixed deposit, etc. in their remitting of money to the Republic of Korea. Therefore, it should be understood that the amount of the funds to be remitted is beyond the scope of "separate negotiations" under Article 6 (2) of the draft agreement.
Thirdly, with regard to Mr. Katsuno's suggestion on the composition of ad hoc working party to handle the matter concerning "separate negotiations" under Article 6, I think that, before composing such an organ, a considerable progress had better be made of the fundamental points of our negotiations, though Mr. Katsuno's suggestion is now under study.
Now, I am going to give my view to some of questions raised by Mr. Hiraga at the 12th session.
(1) As to "the date of the termination of Pacific War...", the matter will come out later and, therefore, I would reserve my answer thereon.
(2) In connection with the problem of the inclusion of "descendants" in "the Korean residents in Japan", Mr. Hiraga stated that the reason for considering a special status and treatment for Korean residents in Japan is from the necessity of a "relief measure" for those Who had to change their "nationality" under special circumstances, etc. But it would be a big mistake, if Mr. Hiraga thinks that a special status and treatment is to be given to Korean residents in Japan as "a relief measure". As we all know, almost all of Korean residents in Japan had been compulsorily brought over to Japan as drafted labourers or heavy workers, or conscripted "military" workers for Japan's purposes.
It needs a serious determination of mind, when a Korean leaves his native town for good for other country which is thounands of miles away. No Koreans have, in fact, migrated into Japan of their own free will.
The then imperialistic Japan had utilized labouring power of the Koreans who had been forcibly taken to Japan, even to such extent that many of them lost their lives in the course of their hard labour.
Under the circumstances, Japan should be solely responsible for the present predicament and hardships of Korean residents in Japan. No man of conscience would allow Japan to treat human beings as cast-off shoes. It is quite natural that descendants of Korean residents in Japan should live in the places where their parents live. These descendants should be entitled to the same treatment as to be rendered to their parents, because they will succeed to the status of their parents in Japan who have in Japan their basis of living.
(3) Mr. Hiraga raised a question on wordings of the draft agreement at this stage which seems to be rather premature. But, inasmuch as he questioned about the difference of the meaning of the word "affirm" in the preamble from that of the word "confirm" in Article 2 (1) of the draft agreement, I wish to give my comment thereon.
The word "affirm" means "make firm". As we are fully aware, it is a customary practice in an international agreement that the purpose or spirit of the agreement is described in general terms in the preamble. So, we used such terms as "affirm" in the preamble.
On the other hand, in a specific article of an international agreement, it is also customary to use a word which has a legal bearing or meaning. The word "confirm" which means "make firm by the formal authoritative assent", has been used as a word which describes the way how to "affirm" or "make firm the nationality of Koreans residing ...". Thus, it is obvious that the word "confirm" has bean used in Article 2 (1) to show a formal action which the Republic of Korea and Japan take, that is to say, "to make firm something which already exists, by formal authoritative assent".
(4) Mr. Hiraga took the view that the Korean residents in Japan lost their "Japanese" nationality upon the first coming into force of San Francisco Peace Treaty. In this connection, I take a differeat view from Mr. Hiraga's. I do not think it right that the Japanese side connects the nationality problem of Korean residents with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I want to avoid any long argument on this matter, but one thing that I have to make it clear at this stage is that the Government of the Republic of Korea was inaugurated on Argust 15, 1948, and the Government was recognized as "the only lawful Government" of Korea by the United Nations and many of the countries of the world.
On what legal ground did Mr. Hiraga frequently say that Korean residents in Japan lost "Japanese" nationality, etc.?
Mr. HIRAGA:
The legal ground is on the "Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty" in 1910.
Mr. CHOI:
Mr. Hiraga touched upon a very serious problem. As the so-called "annexation treaty" had been compulsorily imposed (by force and duress), it is null and void.
(5) Now, as to Article 2 (2), Mr. Hiraga wanted to know the details of the Korean laws related to the international private law, I think that the information on the international private laws of Korea and Japan should be mutually supplied later when necessary. Therefore, I will not refer to the details of Korean laws concerned at this stage.
(6) As regards Mr. Hiraga's question regarding whether the word "permanent residence" or "permission thereof" in Article 3 (1) would mean the same thing under the Japanese Immigration Control Law. I cannot but doubt the real intention of the Japanese side in its discussion with the Korean side on the problem of Korean residents in Japan.
The Japanese laws and regulations are only domestic laws and regulations of Japan and not International law.
It cannot be justified that Japan always tries to adher to her own "domestic" laws when she is negotiating on an "international" agreement with the Republic of Korea. The expression "permanent residence" or "permission thereof" shall be defined only in accordance with the present agreement, and not with the so-called Japanese laws concerned, and I think the "permanent residence" here means "permanent residence" in the literal sense of the word appearing in the present draft agreement.
(7) Concerning Mr. Hiraga's question as to the procedure for application fir permanent residence, it is recalled that Mr. Katsuno once stated that, if the Japanese Government should follow the procedures as stipulated in Article 3 (1), it would create a problem on its budget, amounting to quite a "large" sum of money. At the 11th session, I stated, in reply, that, as to the procedures for granting permanent residence to Korean residents in Japan, it would be a problem worth studying to map out an idea by which permanent residence could be granted to Korean residents in Japan in a most economic, effective and time-saving manner, and that I asked the Japanese side if it had any good idea in its mind.
Now, I want to listen to the Japanese view in this regard if the Japanese side has prepared itself for making any remarks thereon.
(8) With respect to Mr. Hiraga's question concerning the relations between "deportation" and "consultation", I remember that the Korean side has already expressed its view, and therefore I do not feel it necessary to repeat my remarks thereon. But I wish to add that the "permanent residence' subject to arbitrary deportation cannot be "permanent residence" in the true sense of the word, and that the case-by-case consultation is a logical conclusion from the "permanent residence" status to which Korean residents in Japan are entitled.
Mr. HIRAGA:
Do you mean that deportation of Korean residents cannot be carried out without the consent of the other party?
Mr. CHOI:
Unilateral or arbitrary deportation cannot be called the deportation which is to be carried out upon "consultation".
Mr. HIRAGA:
When deportation is carried out by the Japanese Government, it is carried out within the scope of the criteria specified in the Japanese laws concerned and not in any arbitrary manner. Thus, I don't know what kind of consultation Korean side wishes to have in the deportation, when you referred to "case-by-case" consultation.
Mr. CHOI:
You are always refering to so-called the Japanese laws, etc. It is quite unreasonable for you to try to adhere to your own domestic laws when both sides are negotiating on an international agreement.
Now, as to the subjects of the consultations as is stated in Article 3 (2), they are also relating to "such matters as are required for the enforcement thereof ..." which will come to light later as the present negotiations are making progress.
(9) With regard to Mr. Hiraga's question Nos. 13 and 14 in regard to Articles 4 and 5, and their relations with Article 7 (3), etc., I have already raised some questions at the 12th session, and therefore I do not want to repeat it. But it is recalled that I have already put forward a question regarding what kind of special" treatment is now actually rendered to Korean residents in Japan. In the beginning of today's session, Mr. Katsuno stated that he needs a little more time in giving his answer to my question. I, therefore, would like to urge once again the Japanese side to give its answer to my question mentioned above.
These are the almost all I want to say at the today'a session. I hope that the Japanese side will make constructive efforts to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the problems being handled at this committee.
Mr. HIRAGA:
As to the unanswered part of my questions, I hope the Korean side will give its answers at the next meeting.
Mr. CHOI:
I don't think that this is the stage where questions and answers are exchanged on a "minor and technical" points. I hope the Japanese side will give the Korean side answers on questions raised by the latter at today's session and previous sessions as well. Detailed matters will eventually be dealt with when the Committee enter into article-by-article deliberations.
Mr. HIRAGA:
It is very hard for the Japanese side to say "yes" or "no" on the Korean proposal before it grasps in detail the Korean view enbodied in the draft agreement. My view is that, before entering into article-by-article discussions on the draft agreement, the Japanese side has to know the exact meanings of the various articles of the Korean draft agreement, and, therefore, I wish to have the Korean answers on the unanswered part of my questions.
Mr. CHOI:
The Korean side has already given the overall explanations on the purpose and spirit of the draft agreement, and also expressed its views on several points which were referred to by the Japanese side. Our draft proposal was made not in verbal form but in writing. Therefore, you can fully understand what the Korean proposal means, if you read the draft agreement. I urge that the Japanese side express its view on my questions already raised and on the draft agreement itself. I also think that our efforts have to be concentrated to arrive. at the target of this committee as soon as possible. In so doing, we can expedite the smooth and effective proceeding of this committee. Beside these, we have many tasks to do:"separate negotiations" under Article 6, etc.
Mr. KATSUNO:
As I listened to the Korean views expressed today, I felt that there existed discrepancies of views between both sides. The Japanese side will make comment on the answers made by the Korean side in regard to the Japanese questions. I hope that exchange of questions and answers will be made continuously.
Mr. CHOI:
Mr. Katsuno, please understand that this is not a new problem; both sides exchanged their views at previous Korea-Japan conferences, and through routine diplomatic channels as well. If we continue to exchange questions and answers endlessly, I am afraid that this committee would go to some other places than it is expected to go to.
I think that the Japanese side has to be sincere enough to avoid any possible result of making this place the site of discussion for the sake of discussions only. I hope your side will enter into the crux of the problems and your doing so will be a due course of this committee arriving at its target. It is essential that the committee should proceed with the right course which it should follow.
Mr. KATSUNO:
You think as if the Japanese side were trying to make discussions for the sake of discussions only, but I believe that, in the course of exchanging questions and answers, the background of the Japanese way of thinking has also been known to the Korean side.
The exact meanings of various articles of Korean draft agreement are not clear to the Japanese side, and, therefore, I deem it necessary to continue to exchange questions and answers to the fullest extent so that an amicable settlement could be made of the legal status of Korean residents in Japan. It would be necessary to continue discussions by exchanging questions and answers, in order to forestall any future dispute on the problems concerning Korean residents in Japan. Therefore, present way of discussions will not always be a way leading merely to waste of time.
Mr. CHOI:
I know of the necessity of forestalling any future dispute in regard to problems concerning Korean residents in Japan. We are, therefore, together here to settle the problems concerning Korean residents in Japan. What I really meant was that, since the Korean side has already presented a draft agreement in writing and also given explanations on the purpose and spirit of the draft agreement, it was the time for the Japanese side to make a concrete answer on various questions raised by the Korean side. I said that I was afraid that if the committee were to continue to exchange questions and answers endlessly, this committee might be changed into a site for discussions for the sake of discussions only, of which the aims might be easily lost sight of.
Mr. KATSUNO:
I am afraid that you misunderstood me. I think our committee meetings made some progress.
Mr. CHOI:
I say that the Japanese side should express its constructive views on the draft agreement and the questions raised by the Korean side. I presumed that the Japanese side is aware of the historical background of how the Korean residents in Japan have been brought to Japan. Therefore, the Japanese side should gave the Korean side clear answers without attempting to exchange mere questions and answers endlessly.
Mr. KATSUNO:
I will show you how the exchange of questions and answers helped the Japanese side know what draft agreement really meant. For example, we did not know it untill we listened to your explanation that there should be no restrictions on the amount of the fund to be remitted by repatriating Korean residents to the Republic of Korea in connection with Article 6.
Mr. CHOI:
It is crystal clear that there is no single word which could be interpreted as meaning that restrictions could be placed on the amount of money to be remitted in Article 6 (2) of the draft agreement. That is why I stated that your side raised many unnecessary questions at the coat of our valuable time. So, I hope that you will express "constructive" views on the questions raised by the Korean side.
Mr. KATSUNO:
I take note of your remarks as the desire of the Korean side. When shall we meet again? Would it be all right to you, if the next session be held at 10:30 a.m„ on monday next, December 1 ?
Mr. CHOI:
I think that the earlier, the better. But I would not raise objection to your proposal on the holding of the next session. As to the press release, shall we follow the past precedent?
Mr. KATSUNO
That will be all right.
MEMARKS:
The Joint Press Release both sides agreed reads; "The committee continued substantial discussions on legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan and it was decided that the next meeting would be held at 10:30 a.m., December 1, 1958."