Tokyo, October 27, 1958

THE GIST OF TALKS SIXTEENTH SESSION THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON VESSELS, COMMITTEE ON KOREAN CLAIMS
1. Time and Place: 03;00 p.m. - 04:20 p.m., on October 21, 1958(Tuesday), Rm.411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side:
Mr. LEE, Ho
Mr. CHEE, Chul Keun
Mr. MOON, Chul Soon
Mr. ROH, Jae Won
Mr. OHM, Yung Dal
Japanese side:
Mr. TAKANO, Tokichl
Mr. YABE, Masanobu
Mr. HANDA, Go
Mr. ICHINOSE, Taizo
Mr. TSUCHIYA, Minao
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. TAKANO:
Before entering into the session, I would like to ask for an excuse for Mr. AWASAWA's absence from the session today. He is unable to attend this meeting due to an urgent business.
Mr. LEE:
That would be all right. For myself, since I had to visit Seoul, I was unable to attend the previous meetings. But, I heard from Mr. CHOI who had taken my place temporarily during my absence that the Sub-committee on Vessels has entered into discussions on Agenda item "A" from the previous meeting with much progress.
I also understand that, at the previous meeting, our side requested your side to submit a list of vessels to be returned to Korea under the Agenda item "A".
Mr. TAKANO:
Since agenda items were adopted and discussions commenced on Agenda item "A" at the previous meeting, we have been able to enter into substantial discussions as you said, Mr. CHOI requested our side at the previous session to present to the Korean side a list of vessels in question, and Mr. AWASAWA said at that time that he would consider the matter. But, before we submit it, I would like to hear about the basis upon which the Korean claims under Agenda item A is placed, since a considerable time has elapsed and situations changed during the years.
Mr. LEE:
As regards the basis for our claims, we have thoroughly discussed it at the first and second Korea-Japan Talks as well as at the Vessels Conference. Therefore, I believe the Japanese side would fully know about the matter. Besides, the discussions on such matter have been already ended.
Mr. LEE (Cont'):
Since we have entered into substantial discussions on the vessel's affairs after a lengthy stalemate, I don't feel there is any necessity to spend more time for such matter under the situation where we should expedite the proceeding to reach an early conclusion.
Mr. TAKANO:
It is true that discussions had been made at the previous Korea-Japan Conferences, but, since a long time has passed and situations changed since then, and, as there were certain discrepancies of opinions between both sides in connection with the matter, I would like to hear once again about the position of the Korean side as regards the legal basis for the claims.
Mr. LEE:
If the Japanese side wishes to hear about the legal basis for our claims for vessels under the Agenda item "A", as it had already been made clear on many occasions in the past, our claims is based on SCAPIN No.2168 and Ordinance No.33 of USMGIK (United States Military Government in Korea).
Mr. TAKANO:
Do you mean that SCAPIN and the Ordinance had been the basis for your claims concerned also at the previous talks?
Mr. LEE:
It is clear that they are closely related as legal basis of our claims under Agenda item "A".
Mr. TAKANO:
As I understand, we were to discuss about the return of vessels between Japan and Korea at this Committee but not the enforcement of SCAPIN itself. Besides, the Japanese side had a certain questions in regard to SCAPIN, since a long time has passed after the Peace Treaty.
I would like to ask you for my reference, whether the Ordinance No.33 is still valid as law in your country.
Mr. LEE:
First of all, I did not expect to enter with your side into discussion on a matter which has nothing to do with the proceeding now at this Sub-committee. But, if you still wish to know about it, it is effective under Article 100 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Korea.
Mr. TAKANO:
As regards SCAPIN 2168, its effect existed only between the SCAP and then the Japanese Government. Therefore, I like to know on How the effect of the SCAPIN 2168 could be legal basis of the Korean Claims in this regard.
Mr. LEE:
As the Japanese Government was obligated to return the vessels in question under the SCAPIN and Ordinance and did not hitherto fulfill its obligation, the obligation to return the vessels is standing as to be carried out.
Mr. TAKANO:
Do you, then, mean that the SCAPIN is still effective?
Mr. LEE:
I am not discussing on whether it is legally effective or not. As long as our side is concerned, there has been an obligation on the Japanese side, and it has not been fulfilled. Therefore, we claim that the implementation of its obligation be made.
Since the legal basis for our claims had been already made clear, I don't see there is any more necessity to waste time for such argument. Further, there is no changes in the position of Korean side in regard to our claims for return of vessels.
Mr. TAKANO:
Although you say that your view in connection with this matter has not changed, don't you think that time has passed and situations changed?
Mr. LEE:
We, too, know that time has passed, but there has been no change in the situation, in this regard.
Mr. TAKANO:
After September 1951 when SCAPIN No.2168 was issued, the Japanese Government has become independent by Peace Treaty from the control of the SCAP. Don't you, therefore, recognize that there was a change in the situation?
Mr. LEE:
I know the fact that the SCAPIN No.2168 was issued during the time of Allied Occupation, and I also know the fact that Japan has become independent after that, but there has been no change in the Japanese obligation to return the vessels under reference.
Mr. TAKANO:
Would you please let me know on whether your claim that there has been no change in the obligation on the Japanese sides is based on the premise that the subject SCAPIN is still effective or you do not matter the question on the effectiveness of the SCAPIN in this connection.
Mr. LEE:
Since Japan has not fulfilled its obligation caused by Ordinance No.33 and SCAPIN No.2168, its obligation still remains to be fulfilled. At any rate, I don't see the reason why you repeat the same question when the matter had already been made clear.
Mr. TAKANO:
I now understand your position. And, as to your request for submittance of the list of vessels, we have already presented to your side a list at previous talks. What, then, would be the relations between it and the one you are now asking for?
Mr. LEE:
Since the previous list was proved to be too short of our satisfaction in terms of number, we requested a new list be submitted with more sincere consideration on the matter.
I should add that the failures of the previous talks were partly caused by such unsatisfactory list. Therefore, I request you to submit a constructive list in order to lead the present talks to a success.
Mr. TAKANO:
We will present our view at the next meeting.
Mr. LEE:
Shall we hold the next meeting on October 24?
Mr. TAKANO:
Let us meet again at 3:00 p.m. on October 28 (Tuesday).
Mr. LEE:
No objection.
REMARKS:
(Before the meeting was adjorned, the Sub-committee had agreed to a Joint Press Release which reads; "The Sub-committee on Vessels entered into substantial discussions on vessels, and it was decided that the next meeting would be held at 3:00 p.m. on October 28, 1958".)

-The end-