COPY

June 195■
■■■■■ A.H.

 

Mr. Breen: On behalf of the representatives of SCAP present, I wish to welcome you gentlemen and to thank for coming over to help us with our problems and we certainly welcome you to Japan. The first item on the agenda deals with the five ships sent to Korean some ago, Mr. Dayton, would you, or some of your people, outline that situation.

Mr. Jahn: Five ships owned by Korea Steamship Company were in Japan at the end of the War and had been in Korean prior to and After August 9. 1945 and not subject to vesting decree. These vessels were sent to Korea at the request of the Commanding General, USAFIK, when shipping was needed to move coal between ports in Korea. SCAP dispatched those five vessels, but them load condition, sent them over and had them operating with Korean crews in Korea. We have requested their return, stating that they are not subject to terms of the vesting decree and were on loan.

Ambassador: We have no agenda.
Mr. Breen: We haver no agenda. We haver the five ships involved, a list of ship from Korea which you have requested information on. It is the second time we shall take up and them we have a third list we would like to talk to you about. The first is the five ships and the second is your request of some 200 and we will set you a complete report on those.

Ambassador: Mr. chairman- may I say a few words? At the Potsdam Conference, the Great Powers agreed that Japan by force enslaved Korea and they agreed Korea must be free and independent. In order to take Korea free and independent politically, her economy should not be overlooked. Therefore, the shipping, which was a part of Korea economy, should be given to Korea. Second point is- After termination war in the first World War the important example is this- the German subjects were not given the right to take away their belongings that were located in Alsace-Lorraine and at the end of the Second World War, same thing in case of Italy. In the case of Korea we have been exploited for the last forty years and we have made tremendous sacrifices both in human beings as well as in property and for all this we do not ask any special privilege, but that of what belonged to Korean economy should be restored to Korea and otherwise the independence has very little meaning. Before coming to details I prefer to listen to reasons about your previous letters written to the Military Government in Korea, on which basis you decided such and such vessels belonged to Japan and Korea because it will help us to determine legally whether they should be returned to Japan or given to Korea. Mr. Zong will explain the while thing to you. We would be very grateful to you if you could explain the basis of your letters or your decision made concerning the settlement of vessels. Registry and nationality o the ship should be the basis of settlement rather than the place of stay after 9 August 1945. That may be right for the Allies, but for Korea the settlement should be made on the basis of the place of registry or the ships nationality. If you take the principle about the place of stay as of 9 August 1945, that means there will be eternal haggling or dispute between Korea and Japan because we ourselves can prove that such and such a steamer was in Korean waters before 9 August. In all probability the Japanese will deny that. That will prolong the settlement which is not beneficial for our common purpose. Therefore, we believe the basis for settlement of shipping claims is the nationality of ship ro place of registry. We would like hear the principles on which you wrote to Military Government in Korea. Gentlemen, Please remember Korea is your outpost

(판독 불가)

to ■■■■ ■■■■■.

Mr. Breen. (판독 불가)

 

I believe it should be repre■■■■ at this ship, if we ■■■ present to this ■■ ■■■rtion the policy which SCAP has received from higher nationality. Do you haver that with you on the quest on these ships, Mr. John.

 

Mr. Dayton: The way we interest it, the Korean Vesting Decree applies to property in Korea, but not in Japan: that you have a ship that was in Korean waters after 9 August and if it was physically located there, then that ship belongs to Korea. There five vessels were sent over for emergency purpose to ■■■■ to alo them out. They were not subject to the Vesting Decree.

Mr. John. The Decree says that property in Korea which was in Korean waters on or after August 9, 1945, is vested. That is applied to ships. Therefore, if ships were in Korean on or after August 9, those ships would have to be returned to Korea having been vested. The policy is that vessels which left Korea on or after 9 August and came to Japan, will haver to be returned to Korea. Vessels which were in Japan, but were not in Korea on or after 9 August but had been sent after 9 August 1945 by SCAP, those vessels are excepted from the terns of the Vesting Decree since they were sent specifically with authority of SCAP. They were excepted from the terns. Then there are vessels which haver crossed the so-called “MacArthur Line” in Korea. They were vessels which were operating under SCAP authority for fishing and for one reason or another, they crossed the line, entered into Korean waters, were apprehended by the Coast Guard and in some instances trials were held and the vessels were confiscated. In other instances we heard nothing about the vessels. We also have instances of vessels which were in Japan on and after 9 August and had not been in Korea. There vessels were forcibly taken by Korean in Japan and the Korean either themselves operating it or forcing the Japanese crew to operate the vessels, sailed them to Korea.

Mr. Blake: These are our various policy directives received from Washington which we in SCAP must conform to, and based on those policy directives, we haver attempted to get the basis information from the Japanese Government here, and where that is not available, we hope we could get what was necessary from the Korean side. That is why we haver written several letters to USAFIK on this subject, hoping to get their report and have some basis information which we might them determine on the basis of our policy from Washington.

Mr. Ambassador: It is rather difficult to follow the reasoning about this 9 August.

Mr. John: The 9 August date was set arbitrarily because it was fixed as the date actually before the termination of hostitlities(hostilities) when property might have been moved out of Korea. The vesting Decree was established by the U.S. Military Government in Korea.

Ambassador: You are the difficulty is that the steamer is always moving. Very hard to prove.

Mr. John: (판독 불가)

Ambassador: (판독 불가) ■■■■ (판독 불가). We are afraid in the Military Government in Korea, with all (판독 불가), could not look after Korean interests so well ■■■■■■ cannot accept ■■■■ of the t■i■■s. We want you to know what we believe ■■ ■■■■ - we believe if we accept 9 August as the fundamental note, it will be prolonged between Japan and Korea, indefinitely. We can prove that about 300,000 tons were in Korean waters after 8 August. Second thought, if we fix 9 August as the principle of settlement- this is not a satisfactory solution of the problem. I beleve the registry or nationality of ship should be the basis of settlement. My colleagues say that if we accept 9 August we get much more then registry shows. We believe the registry should be the basis of settlement.

Mr. Breen: Regarding the effective registry on title, I would like to call on Commander Eathaway.

Commander Eathaway: I think I could bring a few points to bear. In the U.S. taxes in certain states are greater than they are in other states, and it costs corporations more money to register in some places than in others. Therefore, it is quite customary for corporations to establish in the State of Delaware where taxes are less and the company can make more money. Also, certain places in the world, for example, Panama, wherein Natio als which have high standards that they require for shipping find it convenient to take their capital and register vessels. There are numerous vessels belonging to U. S., that are registered in Panama. If some foreign country were to conquer Panama, we contend that these vessels owned by U.S. Nations would not become the property of Panama.

Ambassador: That is quite true. Many British ships were registered in America and vice versa; that is true. Only in the case of Korea, it is not a free enterprise. Korea never had freedom or equal treatment from the Japanese. They exploited Korea and it is fundamentally different from American shipping registered in Panama. In the case of Korea, the Japanese exploited by monopolization. Today, with the power to restore Korean independence, exploitation could not be taken as legal and legitimate property of Japanese individuals. Otherwise, we have the examples- Alsace-Lorraine and Italy, Many examples from the First World War. My colleagues want to know why the 9 August is the principles of deciding the claims. Even if order from higher authority, we want to know because it affectes our interests.

Mr. John: It is an arbitrary date set by the Washington authorities when the termination of the war was certain.

Mr. Breen: In order to protect the Korean properties the Washington authorities set that date so that property taken out would still come under the Vesting Decree of property which might be taken out between 9 August and the date the Armed Forces came in. Korea was given that space interim for Korean protection.

Comm. Eathaway: It was very difficult at the time decisions were being made as to what to allow Korea to take during interim period. This was to assist Korea rather than to harm Korea, for Korea’s protection.

Ambassador: (판독 불가) concerning the ■■■■■■ of shipping claims from ■■■■■■ ■■■■.

Mr. ■■■■■■: (판독 불가) on the policy. That is all ■■■■■■ up. To get accomplish, interpret it and ■■■ our decisions on that.

Ambassador: My colleagues would like to know the reasons behind the policy. Many are not a■■■■■■ to the basis on which you ■■■■ decisions.

Mr. Breen: Do you have copies to which you make specific reference so that we might give specific answers to ■■■■ one?

Ambassador: Yes. the latter.

Commander: Then it would be Korean?

Ambassador: We are talking about second condition. I haven’t settled the fundamental question whether it should belong to Korea only by ■■to. The Japanese-owned steamer happened to be in Korea on 9 August out returned to Japan on 10 August.

Mr. Blake: It would be subject to Vesting Decree, - only with the exception that it was where on SCAP orders. If we loaned certain ships to Korea, that is outside of the directive. But that is only it the case of these five ships.

Ambassador: I am wondering whether you are sure about this point.

Mr. Breen: That is our interpretation of the directive from Washington.

Ambassador: It is somewhat complex. This gentleman says the Japanese-owned steamships located in Korea on 9 August or before mounted to about 300,000 tons which returned to Japan without getting any permission from either Military or Allied Powers after 15 August, and setting on your basis, Korea is entitled to take those ships back to Japan.

Ambassador: There were millions of Japanese repatriation from Korea without permission of Allied authorities. These ships were taken back to Japan by Japanese after 15 August although they were in Korean waters on 9 August.

Mr. Breen: These ships should go back to Korea unless they were definitely in a smuggling or contraband operation. Where the ships were just carrying people— those ships should go back to Korea which the exception of men-of-war.

Ambassador: Very important factor is this: Just before the termination of War, Japan was pr■ation■■y bl■■■■■■ by American Air Forces so that Japan sent all her military goods to Pusan. The distance is only about 7 hours’ trip between Pusan and Shimonoseki. Therefore, they waited until the 15 August when the war ceased; then started shipping out their military and goods— whatever they could lay their hands ■■, and took them back to Japan.

Mr. Breen: These ships should go back to Korea.

Mr. Blake: That is very passible and true, and as Mr. Breen says, they will be returned.

Mr. Breen: If we can find them, we will return them.

Ambassador: On this basis we have more steamers to be returned to Korea and we can i■■■■■ly them, but we ■■■■ it will be a long-drawn out process.

Mr. Breen: We haver a large list, and investigations are underway at the present time. Only last ■■■■ we went back three. We want to show you that we are operating in good faith under this directive and we have quite a category under investigation right now. We shall see to it that they get to Korea if operable and in good condition.

Ambassador: Before the 9 August, the Japanese Government chartered various steamers from Korea, confiscated or commandeered who should they belong to?

Mr. Breen: That evidence on any particular ship should be sent to us as information to guide us in locating the ships that belonged to you.

Ambassador: Here is a vessel that the Japanese Government confiscated or chartered under duress. The date on that was before 9 August, during the war.

Mr. Blake: The same thing applies. If it can be proved that they are owned by Koreans. Juridical person where that person is in Korea. If the ownership is in Japan. it stays here.

Ambassador: According to Directive No. 10 concerning alien property in Korea, whether or not property belonging to Japanese individually, if registered in Korea, it belongs to Korea.

Mr. Blake: If it were in Korea on August 9, it is subject to Vesting Decree. It is yours. Japanese cannot get it. If property is in Japan and proved to belong to Japan, it stays in Japan regarding of date.

Ambassador: You are r■■■■■■■■■■ individual property of Japanese people as SCAP.

: Regarding (판독 불가) ■■■■■, Military Governments ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ are same ■■■■■ (■■■ADS■) : In other words, ■■■■■ ■■■■■ by Japanese may be preserves; will be vessels in Korea. ■■■■■ will remain in Korea forever.

Mr. Blake: Property covered by steam ownership if in Korea remains with one Korean Government.

Ambassador: We will write out our ideas and give them to you tomorrow.

Mr. Carrington: Mr. Breen, I am confused by the Ambassador’s statements. One thing I want to point out is that we are not making decisions here. They are made and transmitted to us from Washington; we interprets their decisions. Any basis for conference of any kind will have to be on our interpretation of instructions from Washington. The radios I have seen out of Washington included a dispatch of the same radio to USAFIK and am confused that there does not seen to be more ■■■■■al knowledge on the that of this Korean Delegation as to what the Washington interpretation is; for example, the 9 August date— it is as if they had never discussed it.

Mr. Blake: The same directive was sent to USAFIK. It was our feeling that the Koreans ■■■■ details of that directive.

Mr. ■■Clure: That is so, but there is same different interpretation from you and from us and we will go back and confer again so as to cover our points. Mr. Scott and I have been here since 1945, with the Army first, and as civilian, so we have a fairly good basis of operating.

Ambassador: Personal contact is necessary. Very often you misunderstand small, little things, so I believe we will iron out these difficulties before we go home.

Mr. Breen: At tomorrow’s conference, we would like to finalize the five ships and the list of ships for Korea, regarding breakdown and what types of information we need to help us further in locating these ships.

Ambassador: As soon as we agree on basis principles we can tell more- because we not quite agreeable to basis principles for making decisions.

Mr. Carrington: It is that Washington, nor is this headquarters to ■■■■■ basis principles; for example, of you ■■■■■ with the date, we have ■■■■■ to ■■■■■ ■■■■■ that was ■■■■ in Korea, approval in Washington.

Mr. Blake: You have a perfect right to disagree, but disagreement would have to go to higher level than this group. It would have to go back to Washington.

Ambassador: Mr. Gentleman, we would like to know whether you can ask the Japanese Government to report the names of the steamers which returned to Japan after 9 August, and prior to 9 August- which were in Korean waters.

Mr. Darrington: That is not a fair request, because the fact that they were reported in Japan after 9 August under your Korean Vesting Decree so if the Japanese Government reported 100 ships might be only 10 ships subject to Korean vesting decree. The proof must come from your side. I still re■■ point that the list is ■■aqe yo if ships claimed in Korea and the JG confiscated, seized — only so many were Korean. In the operation of the restitution program- the claimant nation has to at least satisfy CFC that they have good grounds for restitution. Proof may be in the form of affidavits.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:00