CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT
JAPAN-KOREA CONFERENCE
Summary Record of the Fifth Session of the Basic Relations Committee
1. Date, time and place:
March 12th (Wednesday), 1952 10:10 hours-12:25 hours
At Room No. 419, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2. Conferees:
Japanese Delegates Mr. OHNO Kataumi
Mr. SHIMA Shigenobu
Mr. CHIBA Koh
Mr. HIROTA Shigeru
Mr. OHSATO Masao
Mr. MITSUDO Toshio
Korean Delegates Mr. YU Chin O
Mr. LIMB Song Bon
Mr. KIM Dong Jo
Mr. CHOI Kyu Hah
Mr. CHANG Yoon Kul
Mr. YOON Suk Kyun
3. Proceedings:
(1) Suspension of Article 1
Mr. YU stated that Article 1 of the “Draft Basic Treaty” presented by the Korean Delegates was under reconsideration of the home Government and that, therefore, the discussion would be suspended pending the government’s decision.
(2) Name of Treaty
Mr. YU expressed that even this treaty might not be deemed a formal peace treaty, the Korean people would consider this treaty as a substantial peace treaty between the both countries. Mr. OHNO, objecting the Korean side’s idea to consider this treaty as a peace treaty, stated that the various problems would be easily solved as a result of the conclusion of a treaty of amity.(3) Preamble
Mr. OHNO consented to the Korean side as to the description in paragraph 1.
Mr. OHNO suggested to delete “pending” from the wording “the various pending problems” in paragraph 2.
(4) Article 2
Mr. OHNO requested that the phrases, “in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations” and “by such means as befit the good neighborly relations” which consisted a part of Article 1 of the Japanese Draft Treaty of Amity, would be inserted in the corresponding places of this Article. Mr. YU responded that the Korean Delegates had no positive opposition, though it thought them unnecessary.
(5) Article 3
Mr. OHNO stated that the Japanese side was desirous to strike out this Article, because of the following reasons:
(a) As all treaties and agreements between Japan and the Empire of Korea had expired, it would make no sense to insert such provisions;
(b) It would be unnecessary to stir up unpleasant remembrance of the past with such provisions, when, as a matter of fact, no one would deem these treaties or agreements be valid at present;
(c) Such vague provisions which did not describe exactly the time of becoming “null and void” would permit different interpretations and make situation complicated:
Mr. YU responded that the unpleasant remembrance would, contrary to the statement of Mr. OHNO, be cleared out by such provisions, and that according to Korean peoples’ interpretation all these treaties and agreements had been null and void since beginning, but merely the confirmation of “null and void” was described in this article without referring to the time of voidance to avoid the complicated situation which might arise from the enforcement of thisinterpretation, and the Korean Delegates would not agree the idea to delete this article.
(6) Article 4
Mr. YU, in response to Mr. OHNO’s question, stated that there was no substantial implication in simplification of the phrase of the Japanese Draft.
(7) Article 5
Mr. OHNO stated that considering the new relationship between Japan and the Republic of Korea under which this treaty would be concluded, the article regarding commerce and navigation would be preferable to contain the provisions to accord each other the treatments to a full extent and that, otherwise, it would be desirous to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of this article, pointing out the fact that without them the Republic of Korea was entitled to the benefits of Article 12 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Mr. YU responded that in this Committee which was not for discussion on a commerce and navigation treaty, the Korean Delegates would not desire to bring in a new principle regarding commerce and navigation clause; it would be the most desirous to enter into negotiations to conclude a commerce and navigation treaty as soon as possible; and that, if the above was impossible, they would like either to provide for in this article substantially in the same manner as Article 12 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, or only to refer to the said Article for provisional measures.
(8) Article 6 and 7
In connection to these articles, Mr. YU stated that it seemed to the Korean Delegates that the Japanese side intended to establish friendly relationship first and then settle pending problems slowly and that the Korean side, on the contrary, gave priority to the settlement of pending problems which had been obstacles to the friendly relations. Mr. OHNO reiterated the hope of the Japanese side to accellerate the discussion of other committees by setting up their guiding principles and to contribute to the betterment of the national opinion, without no intention to delay the settlement of pending problems.
(9) Article 8
Mr. YU stated that this article was substantially the same as Article 4 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, though it would not exclude working arrangements for technical convenience according to the principle of equal division.
(10) Article 9
Mr. YU stated that the conclusion of the Fishery Committee would be inserted in this article, as was the case with Articles 6 & 7.
4. Next session:
It was agreed that the next (sixth) session would be held on March 19(Wednesday) at ten o’clock in Room No. 419 of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[This date was postponed to March 22 (Saturday) later]