Date: November 24, 1958

Re : Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan
(Refer: MTB-046,054 and 055, and HID No.2418)
1. The Delegation is advised that the Government is ready to receive all Korean residents in Japan for their settlement at home, if the Japanese Government pays due compensation for the present predicament for which the Japanese Government should be responsible. If the Japanese side be ready to make approach to the problem from this angle, the Korean side would revise its draft proposal in entirety.
2. Our draft agreement was presented to the Japanese side as an alternative to our position set forth in the preceding paragraph.
3. However, it is not for hairsplitting questions and answers that our side presented the draft agreement on October 20, 1958. We presented it for general debate, through which the Committee could and should map out fundamental principles to govern the status of Korean residents in Japan.
4. If and after both sides agree on fundamental principles as stated above, the Committee can deliberate on the draft agreement article by article determining the meanings of various terms. This is not the time when the Committee wastes time in elaborating definition of one term after another.
5. Therefore, our side should reserve answers, for the time being, to all the questions prematurely raised up by the Japanese side on November 17, 1958; and now we must know, first of all, about Japanese views on the following matters:
A) whether the Japanese Government recognizes that those Koreans concerning whom the committee is seeking an agreement are nationals of the Republic of Korea ;
B) whether the Japanese Government is ready grant them permanent residence in Japan if they so desire, and assure that they enjoy their lives as human beings;
C) whether in Japan its laws and regulations are criteria for circumscribing the scope of an international agreement on the subject now under debate;
D) whether the Japanese Government is intending to grant Koreans in Japan a sort of "special status" different from other aliens, and if so, what such status will be.
E) whether the Japanese side shares the view with the Korean side that to grant all of Koreans in Japan permanent residence is not a sole way to the settlement of the problem of Koreans in Japan, as the Korean side is ready to encourage their repatriation to home only if the Japanese Government is ready to pay due compensation for their compulsory emmigration to Japan and their predicament of living since that time.
We believe that Japanese clarification on the above-mentioned points would expedite an accord on fundamental principles to govern the proposed agreement on the subject.
6. However, the Delegation is exclusively informed of what the Government has in mind concerning those question which the Japanese side recently raised up. They are as follows:
1) It is our view that the date of the termination of hostilities of the Pacific War is August 9, 1945.
2) The word, "Descendants" referred to in Article 1 of the draft agreement means those lineal descendants of Koreans continuously residing in Japan since the date of the termination of hostilities of the Pacific War or since prior thereto, who are nationals of the Republic of Korea by the Nationality Law of the Republic of Korea ; and it should cover all the descendants to follow without limit of time so long as this Agreement remains in effect; the draft agreement provides for nothing about "places of their living," but will there be any actual question when they gave up their residence in Japan ?
3) The Japanese question item 8 seems to have been raised up with a malicious intent; in any civilized country, descendants of those aliens residing in that country with the status of permanent resident are usually granted permanent residence; our side wishes, in this regard, to know what the Japanese practice is on this point.
4) Those Koreans who would not take the prescribed procedures for the permanent residence should be governed also by the proposed agreement, though Article 3 may not apply to those Koreans logically.
5) Even before the end of the 2 year period stipulated in Article 3 of the draft agreement, deportation of Koreans may be carried out if and when consultation is made with the Korean side.
6) By the word, "Consultation" in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the draft agreement, our side take it that deportation of Koreans can be carried out only with the consent of the other party case by case; "Such matters as are required for the enforcement thereof" mean "requirements for implementing deportation"
7) Paragraph 2 of Article 3 will not apply to those who would not obtain due permanent residence under paragraph 1 of the same article.
8) Instead of answering the Japanese question concerning the meanings of Articles 4 and 5 in relation to paragraph 3 of Article 7 and our reservation item 3, we may suggest to the Japanese side that the phrase "the Present Agreement" in Article 4 and 5 be replaced by the phrase "the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the City of San Francisco, September 8, 1951, while withdrawing paragraph 3 of Article 7 and our reservation item 3.
9) As regards Article 6, the Korean residents in Japan in this Article includes their descendants including those who might be born in distant future.
10) The Japanese position concerning paragraph 1 of Article 6 (MTB-046) is unacceptable.
11) We take the position that "procedures" stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 6 does not include the question on the amount of money to be remitted, and accordingly, we cannot accept the Japanese position that the amount of money remitted should be limited.
12) We have no objection in principle to setting up a Working Party Meeting to deal with matters concerning Article 6, but we consider that time has not yet come for the committee to set up such meeting because we believe that adjustment of difference of views on basic points of the draft agreement is to be more urgently done.