I would like to say a few words regarding the progress of the five subcommittees which have been held during the past weeks. As I received the reports from our Delegates who have attended those meetings, I found that the committees have not made much progress. As I stated on the last occasion, it is the desire of my delegation that the settlement of all existing problems be attained in the shortest possible time and that desire still stands at present. However, in spite of our determination to settle the problems in a free atmosphere, I regret to say that recently there has been an increasing tendency especially among the Japanese press circles of making destructive criticisms concerning the outcome of the talks. What I would like to emphasize at this moment is that frankness in expressing the opinion as to where the trouble exists will contribute greatly toward a speedy settlement of our problems. I believe that the purpose or rather the desire of this plenary session is to iron out differences and difficulties which were found in each sub-committee and to pave the way for smooth carrying-out of the talks.
As we all agree, the most important issues in our conference are those of fishery and property claims. I said ‘the most important’. However, this does not mean that other issues are less important.
In the first place, with regard to the problem concerning the property claims, I believe Japan fully understands the position of my delegation on this problem. As I repeatedly pointed out before, Korea cannot accept the Japanese claims to properties in Korea. The interpretation given by the United States State Department also endorses this stand of my Government. If Japan persists in this claim in future as heretofore, I fear that such an attitude will only result in provoking the feeling of my people, thus with adverse effects on future relationship between the two nations.
In the sub-committee Japan suggested that the claims of both Korea and Japan can be offset each other. But how can you expect to offset something definite with something which does not actually exist. In the recent session of the sub-committee the Japanese side stated that Amb. Yang at the informal talks last year indicated the withdrawal of the Korean claim, if Japan dropped its own claim. This is merely a misunderstanding on the part of the Japanese delegation. Amb. Yang has never mentioned anything like this at that time. Besides, my Government has never regarded our claim an item for bargain. My delegation has maintained that so long as Japan shows sincerity, it would not bring out the reparation problem although the question of reparations should also come under this category of claims. However, the question of restitution is different. We mean to get back our properties falling under the category of restitution. To me it appears that Japan should have returned such properties long ago to their rightful owner, Korea. I find myself unable to understand why Japan has so far failed to do so, and why she has not even answered to our questions.
If Japan intends to stick to her stand of demanding properties in Korea, Korea will be compelled to introduce the question of such claims other than restitution. I sincerely hope that Japan consider this question with more sincerity and understanding.
With regard to the problems concerning the delivery of vessels, I once again wish Japan to respond to our request. Ever since the beginning of our talks, most number of meetings and lengthiest period of time have been devoted to discussion of this subject. We all know, I am sure, that this is the easiest to settle and simplest to understand in nature. Yet, to our great regret, the question remains unsettled. I am beginning to doubt, this way, whether Japan is willing to settle the question, in the first place.
It is obvious that Japan must return the vessels to Korea. Japan seems to recognize this fact. The United States Government issued directives to the Japanese Government, calling upon the latter for speedy transfer to Korea of those vessels. Japan somehow has not answer to Korea definitely on this question.
Such being the case, I sincerely hope that Japan at the current session of our talks, present more concrete and constructive ideas on this question toward early realization of the delivery of the vessels to Korea. If we really want to settle, there is nothing too difficult to settle. It is especially true of this problem. If we succeed in settling this subject, it will encourage our attempt to settle other problems promptly.
Concerning the fishery problem, our fishery conservation zone is established for the purposes of protecting natural resources in that area and eliminate fishery disputes between the two countries.
What I want to point out, particularly at this time, is the fact that Japan, even at this moment, is permitting a gigantic fleet of her fishing vessels to engage in fishing operations deep into our zone without regard of our intention to protect fishery resources. Under such circumstances, I cannot but doubt if Japan is really interested in settling the matter to mutual satisfaction of our two countries. The mere presence of Japanese fishing boats in such large numbers in that area, in itself, is giving enormous threats to our fishermen along the coast. It is also true that such a fact is giving them a tense feeling toward the Japanese people.
In this connection, I want to emphasize that if Japan continues to exhaust fishery resources in that area by sending a vast fleet of fishing boats, I do not see what the use of our talking around this table is. Even at this moment of our discussion on this problem, those Japanese fishing boats continue to cross the Line. If the Japanese Government leaves this situation unchecked, there would not exist any more significance of our talking here.
I would like to remind you, Gentlemen, that the eyes and ears of the world are now concentrated on this conference between Korea and Japan. In this sense I want the earliest possible settlement of this problem from the bottom of my heart.
Japan insists that the Line was established unilaterally by the Korean Government. Japan insists on the principle of 3-mile limit to territorial waters and ‘freedom on high seas’ beyond the 3-mile boundary.
I do not think it necessary to repeat here the importance of taking necessary measures to insure the conservation of fishery resources. The Peach Treaty for Japan signed at San Francisco also provides in Articles 9 and 21, the necessity for concluding a fishery agreement between Korea and Japan. Judging from its circumstances and nature, there does exist the necessity for some restrictive measures in regard to fishing activities in that area. Japan’s insistence upon ‘freedom on seas’ beyond the 3-mile limit and its action of sending its enormous fleet of fishing vessels to that area, is, in this sense, truly regrettable.
Our action of proclaiming jurisdiction over that area is based on our obligations and privileges as a littoral state to conserve natural resources in the area. Such an action is in conformity with well-established precedents, as evident in President Truman’s proclamation in 1945 and practices by other civilized nations. It also serves the purpose of forestalling international disputes arising from this question.
Now, with regard to the question of nationality, I wish to point out that some of my countrymen have been held in the Omura detention camp for more than two years. I would like to request the Japanese delegation for immediate release of those detainees. And with regard to the basic treaty problem, I want Japan’s sincere attitude toward the discussion of the problem of extradition for its early settlement.
The reason why I say all this, is because I know that Korea and Japan can attain their eternal peace and restoration of normal relationship only by first settling all these problems between the two countries. I also know that such settlement will not be possible unless we discuss the problems with more sincerity and frankness and with more constructive attitude. That is the only way for us to successfully conduct the conference and to speedily reach agreement on all the subjects.
If one reads the whole text of the proclamation and pays attention to paragraph 4 which reads “The declaration does not interfere with the rights of free navigation of high seas”, he will easily understand that the sole purpose of the proclamation is to insist on the jurisdiction over fisheries for the purpose of conservation of the fishery resources in those areas. Accordingly, the proclamation is absolutely not meant to wholly deny the character of the high seas within the zone. Such being the case, the fundamental idea of this proclamation is just the same as that of President Truman’s proclamation.
The main reasons why the Republic of Korea has to exercise jurisdiction over fisheries in the waters delineated by the fisheries conservation zone are enumerated hereunder:
1. Decrease of species of fishes(bottom and surface fishes) in the zones.
2. The fact that only the Republic of Korea has cultivated fishery measures and exercised the conservation thereof in the zone since the past years must be recognized. Accordingly, these fishery resources which are conserved and protected at the sacrifice of the Republic of Korea are now going to be exploited and destroyed by a vast fleet of Japanese fishing vessels which hold tremendous capacity of fishing operations.
Under the circumstances, it is quite just that the exploitation of fishery resources and the conservation thereof, in the past, by littoral states, should be respected as the most important conditions for the establishment of the conservation zone governing the jurisdiction over fisheries.
3. There will take place very frequent disputes between Korean and Japanese fishermen because there exists an unavoidable unfairness if the fishing operations are put into free competition in the zone, for there is a big difference in the capacity of fishing activities between Korea and Japan at present. This can be easily understood if one holds a mere apprehension that Korean fishermen were obviously discriminated by the Japanese government authorities for the past 36 years. The development of fishing operations of Korea has unjustly been suppressed by the then government authorities, while the Japanese fishermen had been given every favorable measures for the furtherance of fishing activities.