RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

November 22, 1951

 

The delegates assembled at the conference table at 3:25 P.M. Dr. Yang asked Mr. Chiba if he would open the discussions. Mr. Chiba replied by indicating that the nationality sub-committee report was still being typed and would not be ready for several minutes. He suggested that the conference turn to other matters until such time as the report was ready.
He referred to Dr. Yang’s request at the previous meeting that the Japanese Government reconsider its disposition toward those items of the agenda which it would be prepared to discuss at the proposed conference in February. He indicated that he was now prepared to revise his previous statement to a certain extent. In particular, he advised that his Government would be ready in February to consider the question of claims and property. On this subject the Japanese Government would like to hear in February the proposals of the Korean Government and would also have certain proposals of its own to submit.
As far as the discussion on fisheries was concerned, Mr. Chiba explained that the Japanese Government was approached by Indonesia and Australia considerably prior to the opening of these present talks and that it feels obliged to negotiate with those two Governments first after the completion of current discussions with the United States and Canada. It was the earnest hope of the Japanese Government that the Indonesian and Australian arrangements would be completed prior to February, this permitting negotiations at that time with the Korean Government. However, in view of the limited number of experts within the Japanese Government on this subject, Mr. Chiba indicated that no promises could be made at this time concerning the readiness of the Japanese Government to negotiate at any fixed date.
As for the treaty of commerce and navigation, Mr. Chiba found the Japanese Government’s position even more difficult. He said that discussions were being undertaken within the very near future with the United States on a treaty of commerce and navigation, but that there was no indication when these would be completed. He mentioned a newspaper despatch from Washington which suggested that the United States Government would not be concerned if this treaty were not concluded prior to the effective date of the Peace Treaty. He indicated that it might be well after the effective date of the Peace Treaty before Japan could conclude this first treaty in its intended series of commerce and navigation treaties.
Furthermore, he questioned that it was exactly correct to consider the U.S. treaty as a pattern for a treaty between Korea and Japan, where there existed so many problems peculiar to the two nations. At any rate, Japan’s ability to negotiate such a treaty was limited by the scarcity of experts available to the Japanese Government. The department in charge of such matters advised that negotiations would not be possible much before next June. If, however, the Korean Government should have a draft treaty available for discussion in February, the Japanese Government would be pleased to accept it and to study its provisions but could not assume to enter into negotiations on it at that time.
In conclusion, Mr. Chiba expressed the hope that the Korean Government would be prepared to meet with the Japanese Government in the first part of February on the basis of the understanding outlined above. He knew that they fell rather short of what the Korean Government had expected but he wished to assure the Korean delegation that this was the best which the Japanese Government could offer at this time.
In reply, Dr. Yang stated that he had held a long discussion with Mr. Wajima of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the evening of November 12. This discussion arose as a result of Dr. Yang’s conversation with Mr. Iguchi earlier that day. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Wajima had “guaranteed” that the Japanese Government would be prepared to take up all matters in February. He said that the contrast between this statement and Mr. Chiba’s present statement left him puzzled since he felt sure that he and Mr. Wajima had understood the significance of all that passed between them. Mr. Chiba pointed out that he had taken the trouble to consult with Mr. Wajima before this meeting to determine exactly Dr. Yang. It was his understanding that Mr. Wajima’s use of the term “fully prepared” pertained only to claims and not to fisheries or commerce and navigation.
Dr. Yang said that what he was talking about was the entire agenda and that if these discussions are confined only to claims, the two Governments would not have concluded a bilateral treaty in any sense of the word. For example, if the Peace Treaty went into effect prior to the conclusion of some arrangement concerning fishing rights there would inevitably be incidents involving Korean and Japanese fisherman which could only lead to unfortunate results. It was these results that he was trying to avoid by proposing an early settlement of the fishing question prior to the effective date of the Treaty of Peace.
Mr. Chiba agreed that such a circumstance might regretfully be true, but that it would result not from any deliberate intention but only from the physical impossibility of concluding a fisheries agreement in the necessary time. As for commerce and navigation treaties, he cited the example of negotiations between United States and Colombia which he understood consumed a year and a half. He thought it would not be feasible to expect the completion of any negotiation between Korea and Japan on commerce and navigation prior to the effective date of the Peace Treaty. However, he considered that an arrangement could be made extending the current relationship between Korea and SCAP or else merely applying the principles outlined in Article 12 of the Peace Treaty.
Dr. Yang asked if the Japanese Government would be willing to develop a similar interim arrangement with respect to fisheries and to maintain the MacArthur Line on the basis of temporary agreement prior to the conclusion of a formal fisheries treaty. Mr. Chiba indicated that he did not desire to go into the substance of the fisheries question but suggested that a study of the Japanese position in negotiations with United States and Canada made it clear the Japanese Government does not consider the restrictive concept of the MacArthur Line as desirable. Their best hope to avoid entanglement on the fisheries issue with Korea is to achieve speedy negotiations with Indonesia and Australia thus clearing the way for an agreement with Korea. He suggested that it might be pertinent for the Korean delegation to submit a proposal for the continuation of the MacArthur Line in February in the event that the Japanese Government is not ready at that time to talk concretely about the fisheries issue. He could not assure Dr. Yang of the nature of Japan’s answer to such a proposal but indicated that his Government would be glad to entertain the idea.
Dr. Yang proposed that the Japanese Government address a letter to the Korean Government agreeing that all original arrangements between the Republic of Korea and SCAP be maintained pending the independent settlement of new procedures directly between the Republic of Korea and Japan. This would include much matters as the present situation until a more adequate solution could be found. In particular, it would prevent the problem of poaching in fishing grounds that might lead to disturbing incidents.
Mr. Chiba stated that again he hesitated to go into the substance of the fisheries question, but felt that even in the absence of some specific arrangement there were international usages that would apply and would govern fishing in areas of common concern to the two countries. He felt that this was the normal procedure and that specific agreements were the exception. He pointed out that while the Koreans might consider fishing by Japanese across the current MacArthur Line as poaching, from the Japanese point of view it was merely the exercise of normal fishing rights and the MacArthur Line constituted a restriction upon these rights. He repeated his previous suggestion that the matter be brought up in February and not at this time.
Dr. Yang asked why it could not be brought up now. Mr. Chiba explained that such a provisional arrangement would rejudge and would very likelybecome a permanent state of affairs. He pointed out that in February there would be three possibilities with regard to fisheries (1) the Japanese would be prepared to discuss and reach agreement with the Korean on the subject, (2) both countries could agree upon a provisional arrangement pending ultimate solution, or (3) nothing could be done in February and an ultimate solution would have to await the readiness of both sides to reach a permanent agreement.
Mr. Kim asked why an interim agreement could be proposed for commercial relations and could not be considered for fishing. Mr. Chiba replied that, to be quite frank, the current commercial arrangements were quite satisfactory to the Japanese Government. Mr. Kim asked if this implied that the MacArthur Line was not satisfactory. In a laughing manner, Mr. Chiba stated that out of consideration to the observer, he felt that he would prefer not to answer that question directly.
Dr. Yang, in summing up, asked that Mr. Chiba check once again with Mr. Wajima concerning the latter’s intentions in his previous conversation with Dr. Yang. He particularly wanted to know whether the Japanese Government would be prepared to enter into discussions on all items of the agenda in February. If not, he requested that the Japanese Government signify its willingness to maintain the current arrangements instituted by SCAP and the Republic of Korea in order to prevent any incidents between the two countries. He specified that he preferred to have this willingness stated in a written communication to the Korean Government. Mr. Chiba said that he would be willing to relay these requests to his superiors but he did not feel that much could be said on the second proposal at this time. Before closing discussion on these points, he desired to point out that in connection with the preparations for the February conference the Japanese Government would be pleased to provide information and facilities to the Korean Government if there are any requests for such. He felt that this could be done either through direct conferences or through the Korean Mission in Japan. He also suggested that there will be another channel established which he is not yet prepared to discuss. With reference to Mr. Chiba’s mention of “conference”, Dr. Yang asked if that implied this present conference would continue in session and Mr. Chiba stated that he would prefer to discuss that with Dr. Yang on some other occasion. It was then agreed to go on to the report of the nationality subcommittee which had been completed during the prior discussion.
Dr. Yu Chin O, in submitting the sub-committee’s report, made the follow statement:
“The Sub-Committee on the Korean Residents in Japan was appointed and called to commence its business at the Conference of whole of the 30th of October and opened on 11:30 A.M. of that date and have had 10 meetings to date. At the 1st and 2nd Meetings which were held on 30th and 31 of Oct. respectively, the Japanese side explained the treatment of those Koreans in the past and the present circumstances as well as the provisions of the Japanese Immigration Order.”
“At the 3rd Meeting held on Nov. 2, Korean representatives presented their views on the subject. On 7 Nov., having studied the previous proposal made by the Korean side, Japanese representatives made clear their counterviews on this subject at the 4th meeting. The 5th meeting was called to open on 9 Nov. for the discussion of detailed technical points regarding the removal of personal properties which are to be carried with those Koreans who would repatriate.”
“Since both sides clarified their views fully during those sessions, it was agreed to prepare written statements of these views in order to facilitate the further discussion. The 6th and 7th meetings held on 12 Nov. and 14 Nov. respectively for further study of the written statements prepared by both sides and decided to submit the same to the Main Conference. It was also suggested at the 7th meeting that both sides draft the joint-report on the matters which have been agreed upon at the meetings. The 8th and 9th meetings on the afternoon of Nov. 14 and 17 were solely devoted to study and trim the draft of the said joint report of which final draft was adopted at Nov. 20th’s tenth meeting. This final drafts is the report which we have just presented here.”
“Therefore, this Joint Report is a summary of the views discussed and the matters agreed on at the sub-committee and the detailed views of both sides are attached to this report. As these attached documents have been prepared separately by two parties, it is our desire to use these statements for the reference.”
“We feel that the sub-committee on the legal status of Koreans in Japan have finished its business as it has presented its joint report.” (A copy of the joint report, Japanese statement and Korean statement are attached.)
At the completion of this statement, Mr. Chiba asked for clarification on one point. He said it was his understanding that the Joint statement constituted the report of the sub-committee and that the other two statements were attached, not as part of the report, but for reference purposes only. He would like to have that confirmed. There was general agreement on both sides of the table that Mr. Chiba’s understanding was correct.
Dr. Yang, with reference to the sub-committee’s report, stated that he would like once again to make clear the Korean position with reference to Korean residents in Japan. It was his Government’s stand that there were two categories of Koreans resident in Japan (1) those who were in Japan prior to August 9, 1945 and (2) those who arrived in Japan after that date. He felt it proper to consider those in the second category as aliens but desired to point out that those in the first category had been given the same treatment and assumed the same obligations and duties as Japanese during all their years of residence. He felt it would be improper to treat both these categories in the same manner.
Mr. Chiba stated that he was not prepared to enter into a discussion of the report as yet, since he had not had an opportunity to study it; but he felt that Dr. Yang had touched upon some matters of principle with which the Japanese Government could not agree. Particularly, the Japanese Government was not in accord with the Korean contention that August 9, 1945 was a significant date in connection with Korea nationality. The Japanese position was that Koreans in Japan were still Japanese until the effective date of the Peace Treaty, at which time they would become Koreans.
Dr. Yang asked if these Koreans had enjoyed suffrage and Mr. Chiba said no. Then Dr. Yang stated they are not Japanese nationals and have never become Japanese nationals in the true sense of the word. Mr. Chiba stated that he felt it was indisputable that they had become Japanese nationals as of 1910. But Dr. Yang replied that the fact that they had never been allowed to vote in Japan was a contradiction of the notion that these Korean had become Japanese nationals. Mr. Chiba pointed out that the question of universal suffrage was a rather recent innovation and could not be accepted as a proper criterion for nationality.
Dr. Yang then asked if it were not true that Japan had accepted the Potsdam Declaration and its implications with regard to Korea. Mr. Chiba replied that although the Potsdam Declaration had been accepted, its terms were not to be implemented until a Treaty of Peace could come into effect. Dr. Yang stated that he felt this was somewhat at variance with reality since Korea had become sovereign and had been recognized by the United Nations and had established a Nationality Act of its own. Mr. Chiba replied that he did not dispute the sovereignty of Korea or the effectiveness of its Nationality Act. But he pointed out that it had not been formally recognized as yet by Japan and that even if it were, it would only result in the establishment of dual nationality for the individual Koreans involved. He went on to point out that Japan could not make an exception in its ultimate treatment of one category of Korean residents with respect to any other aliens in Japan and they would all have to receive the same treatment and privileges. However, he indicated that his Government was prepared to “facilitate the change-over” for those Koreans who had been in Japan for some time. For example, his Government might consider special exceptions from the payment of the two thousand yen registration fee and would otherwise make it easy for these people to assume their new alien status. However, he desired to make it clear that once the change-over had been made there could be no distinction in ultimate treatment and that Koreans would enjoy the same privileges as all other aliens in Japan.
Mr. Chiba then proposed that the nationality sub-committee report be referred to the two Governments to see if any new proposals would be possible.
If such proposals could be made he felt the matter could be turned back to the sub-committee for discussion of these proposals. Dr. Yang asked if