September 15, 1959

GIST OF TALKS EIGHTEENTH SESSION COMMITTEE ON LEGAL STATUS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time and Place: 10:30 - 12:00 a.m. September 11, 1959, at Room 411, Foreign Ministry, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side: Dr. YU Chin-O
Mr. LEE Ho
Mr. CHOI Kyu Ha
Mr. EA Chai Hang
Mr. CHIN Pil Shik
Mr. HAN Kibong
Mr. ROH Jae Won
Mr. KWON Tae Woong
Japanese side: Mr. KATSUNO Yasusuke
Mr. KIRAGA Kenta
Mr. MIYAKE Kijiro
Mr. HASEGAWA Shinzo
Mr. MORI Junzo
Mr. HIRATSUKA Nenoichi
Mr. NAKAJIMA Toshijiro
Mr. NAKAGAWA Toyokichi
Mr. IKEBE Ken
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. Katsuno
At today's meeting the Japanese side wishes to discuss the term of "descendants" in order to define it from the legal point of view. As the concept of descendants is vague, I think it should be legally cleared in connection with the question on whether it be included in the scope of the Korean residents in Japan.
Dr. Yu
At the previous meeting, I suggested that both sides exchange views on overall problems in general first before entering into detailed discussions on the proposed agreement article by article.
Mr. Hiraga
It is my understanding that we are to enter into article by article discussions on the Korean draft agreement at today's meeting.
Dr. Yu
As I stated at the previous meeting, our proposal made last year has not been withdrawn. I suggested then that mutual views in general be exchanged first, withholding discussions on the said proposal for a while, because there had developed a new situation. I referred to the matters on the scope of Korean residents and on the nationality as part of the exchange of general views on overall matters. Therefore, I would like to listen to the Japanese views first, if any, as to the scope of the Korean residents in Japan and their nationality problem. Thereafter, 1 would present our general views further on other matters concerned.
Mr. Hiraga
I would like to set forth our views in connection with article 1 of the Korean proposals as follows:
Firstly, "the date of the termination of hostilities of the Pacific War" quoted in the proposed agreement should be determined lest there should be conflicting interpretations.
Secondly, it is necessary to define the term of descendants from the legal point of view. For instance, the following question may be raised, that is, whether such descendants of Korean residents be included in the "descendants", whose domiciles were in Korea or in a country other than Japan, at the time of the termination of hostilities of the Pacific War.
The Japanese side is of the opinion that such Koreans who were domiciled in a country other than Japan, even if they were lineal descendants of Korean residents in Japan, be excluded from the scope of the "descendants". Accordingly, we hold that the scope of "the descendants" be limited to the lineal descendants who have been residing in Japan continuously after their birth in Japan.
Another question may also be raised, that is, whether children who were born of a father of U.S. citizenship and a mother who is a Korean resident in Japan be included in the scope of the descendants of the Korean residents in Japan. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of the descendants also leaves room for discussion. It is, therefore, hoped that the scope of the Korean residents in Japan be defined as strictly as possible. I think that a mere fact of lineal descendants in blood relations is not sufficient to define the descendants in this regard. Besides, I would like to know how the descendants are related to the treatment that is provided in Article 3 and so forth in the proposed agreement.
For instance, in connection with the provisions of Article 3 which stipulates that a Korean resident can apply for permanent residence, within two years after coming into force of the proposed agreement, with a registration certificate, I would like to know on how this provision would be applied to a person who was born two years after the coming into force of the proposed agreement.
Thirdly as regards the confirmation of nationality of the Korean residents in Japan, it is necessary to be cleared that whether Article 2 of the draft agreement purports to confirm their nationality already established or whether their nationality is to be established newly by virtue of the said Article. The Japanese side takes the former view. In this connection I would like to know (from technical view point) on what legal basis and when those Koreans became nationals of the Republic of Korea. We don't mean that they are Japanese nationals. Frank discussions on these problems are sincerely desired.
Dr. Yu
Our views on the questions raised by you now will be given later on when we enter into detailed discussions on the problems concerned.
I am now going to present our general views on other problems on the Korean residents in Japan.
As regards paragrapls 1 and 2 of Article 3, there is no change in their fundamental principles.
As regards Article 4, which relates to property rights of the Korean residence in Japan, there is no change in principle.
However, in connection with the treatment of the Korean residents in Japan, I am of the opinion that the Korean residents shall also be granted the treatment equal to Japanese nationals with respect to education, economic activities and social welfare (social security included) as well. It is also desired that the descendants of the Korean residents should be admitted to Japanese schools on an equal footing with Japanese nationals. Likewise the Korean residents should be able to establish and run their schools of various grades and types.
The problem concerning the repatriation to the Republic of Korea of individual Koreans is provided in Article 6. I want to make it clear that the Government of the Republic of Korea not only welcomes their repatriation but also intends to encourage them to return. It is, therefore, desired that measures be worked out on this problem at the earliest date so as to expedite the return of as many Korean residents in Japan as possible.
As regards Article 6, which relates to their property to be taken away, it is necessary to stipulate the principle of placing no restrictions on the quantity of such property. This does not necessarily mean that a vast quantity of their movables is taken home at one time. I admit that separate arrangements with the Japanese government is necessary on the method of taking their movables away from Japan.
As regards paragraph 2 of Article 6, which relates to the remittance of their funds, I am of the opinion that no charges should be imposed on it, and whole amount of their funds be made remittable, although I don't mean necessarily that the whole amount of their funds shall be remittable at one time when they return to Korea.
Next, I am going to make a new proposal, which is aimed at seeking measures to encourage the Korean residents to return en masse to the Republic of Korea, The above-mentioned provisions of Article 6 are concerned only with their individual returns.
The followings are related to mass return of the Korean residence in Japan. Provided that the Japanese government pays compensations necessary for their repatriation to and resettlement in the Republic of Korea within a limited period after the coming into force of the proposed agreement, our Government is ready to receive them and make every possible effort to facilitate their re-settlement in Korea. Such action, if taken by the Japanese government, is sure, I believe, to encourage the return of as many Korean residents as possible.
Furthermore, I hold that such provisions of the proposed agreement relating to property rights, remittance of funds, shall also be applied to thosed Koreans who return en masse.
As regards Article 7, there may be possible adjustment in technical points, though no change appears necessary at present.
As the views I have stated so far are of general character, any change in them is conceivable in the course of the discussions after Japanese opinions are heard.
Mr. Katsuno
Your remarks on paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 of the Korean proposal of October 20, 1958 sound to us to be a substantially new proposal. Also, we would separately discuss the problem of the quantity of property to be taken by repatriates.
Your proposal on the mass repatriation to the Republic of Korea of the Korean residents is somthing entirely new. Do I understand correctly that the original Korean proposal of October 20, 1958 will be superseded by this new one?
Dr. Yu
I am afraid that you have misunderstood my remarks. Article 6 of the Korean proposal remains as it was in principle. I said there should be in the said article a clause clarifying that no restrictions should be placed on the quantity of property to be taken by the repatriates. It is correct that our proposal regarding the mass repatriation of the Korean residents is somthing new.
We are considering to revarrange the original Korean proposal of October 20, 1958 on the basis of various points I have just explained. In the course of re-arrangement, there may be some changes in the order of articles, when necessary.
Mr. Hiraga
Regarding your proposal on the mass repatriation of the Korean residents to the Republic of Korea, you proposed that the Japanese government pay compensation to the repatriates and provide facilities for the repatriation. Exactly what do you mean by "compensation for the repatriates to resettle"?
Dr. Yu
If necessary, we can sufficiently theorize basis for such claim. However, since you will easily know that we mean, we would not attempt to waste time in this connection, today. It is easy to resume that the repatriates are mostly poor.
In view of the historical background of their immigration to Japan, I believe the Japanese government would not refuse to pay compensation to them for their resettlement in Korea, even from the humanitarian viewpoint. What is more important in this regard is, we should endeavor to encourage them to repatriate to the Republic of Korea.
Mr. Hiraga
As to "the historical background" which you mentioned, I am afraid that I don't fully understand it. Do you mean that the compensation for the resettlement in the Republic of Korea covers expenses for repatriation housing and setting up occupation, etc.
Dr. Yu
We will have to contine the exchange of our views on this matter, We do not ask for such large sum of money as to lead a wealthy life. But, it should be enough for them to restart a decent life.
Mr. Katsuno
Since the proposal is of great importance, we should like to give it a careful study. Regarding your proposal on education, economic activities, social security, etc. for the Korean residents, we will give you a reply after a careful study.
Dr. Yu
As we have presented our general views on various problems concerning Korean residents, we would like to hear the Japanese views.
Mr. Katsuno
We will give you our views at the next session, if possible.
(Remarks)
1. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held at 10:30 a.m., September 19, 1959, Saturday.
2. Both sides agreed to adopt a press release which reads as follows:
The 18th session of the Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan was held at 10:30 a.m., September 11. Both sides continued substantial discussions on legal status, treatment, repatriation to the Republic of Korea of Korean residents in Japan. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Legal Status Committee would be held at 10:30 a.m. September 19, 1959."

-The End-