Document No.

Date: December 4, 1958

Re: The 4th Korea-Japan Conference
1. Even at worst case, we have to avoid a rupture at the Committee on Fisheries and Peace Line. The Japanese proposal for a provisional fishery agreement of November 28, 1958 is hardly worthy of serious consideration. However, this is not the time for us to irritate unnecessarily the Japanese side at the above-mentioned committee, though we expect little result from debate on the basis of the said Japanese proposal.
2. Being in defensive but seemingly flexible position at the Fisheries and Peace Line Committee, we must exhaust our energy at the Committees on Korean Claims and Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan, since at least it is highly necessary for us to sound out what the Japanese side has in their bottom of heart on these issues.
3. Therefore, at the Fisheries and Peace Line Committee, we have to negotiate in the following way:
A. We should say: "The Japanese draft of November 28 is under study by our side. But in this study, we have to ask many questions." Thus, Delegation should present various technical questions for Japanese reply, saving time while we take active move at the other committees.
B. A series a questions as stated above will include, among others, the following questions: 1) "How did you reflect what you had in mind when signing the Agreed Mautes of December 31, 1957, by which the problem. of the Peace Line was to be placed on agenda at the 4th Korea-Japan conference; 2) "The Japanese proposal of November 28 is mainly to regulate fishing in the areas closely adjacent to the Korean peninsula. We wonder, under the circumstance, whether the Japanese side presented the said proposal really in the spirit of preventing the fishing disputes." 3) "It seems that principles governing the said Japanese draft proposal are different from those of the Japan-U.S.-Canada Fishery Agreement. We wonder under what legal ground they are so different." The Japanese proposal of November 28 is mainly to regulate fishing in the areas closely adjacent to the Korean peninsula. We wonder, under the circumstance, whether the Japanese side presented the draft proposal of November 28 really in the spirit of preventing the fishing disputes."
4. In the view of the Government, there will be no prospect of progress at the Committee on Korean Claims unless the Japanese side shapes the so-called "basic policy". Under this circumstance. we should request the Japanese side to hold a plenary session. at which the following questions will be raised up:
1) Art objects - "We wonder when the Japanese side will set forth its "basic policy"on the problem of returning Korean art objects." "We wonder whether Japan will return these objects any way."
2) Vessels - "Our request for vessels of Korean registry is made on the ground of SCAPIN No.2168 "If the Japanese side has any different view therefrom, we would like to be informed thereof."
Delegation should be cautious to put exactly on record the Japanese remarks which it may make in reply to our questions.
5. In the Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan, Delegation should put forward such five questions as stated in government instructions No.OJ-4355, and put Japanese answers into record.
6. We should not take initiative for adjourning the conference or for postoning meetings under any circumstance, se that we may impress the world that the Japanese side is responsible for delay or failure of settlement.
7. It is not the time to transfer any issue to a talk at higher levels. But it is highly necessary for our delegates to be positive in contacting informally the Japanese authorities or Japanese chief members of committees to sound out what the Japanese side is contemplating in its talks with us. The chief delegate is, of course, responsible for reporting on the general development of the formal or informal talks with Japan. But each delegate may report on hi. informal activities, under his own responsibility, with his own observations or recommendations