July 28,1959

TO: his Excellency the Foreign Minister
FROM: Vice Foreign Minister
SUBJECT: Summary Record of Coversation with Ambassador Dowling
The Foreign Minister called in Ambassador Dowling to Foreign Office at 3:30 p.m., July 24, 1959, and delivered to him the ORAL STATEMENT to which His Excellency the President carlior gave an approval.
Under a State Department instruction, Ambassador Dowling called on the Foreign Minister at 10:30 a.m., July 27, 1959, and stated as follows regarding the ORAL STATEMENT.
1. Where the resumption of the Korea -Japan talks is conditional or unconditional, that is, whether or not the Koreans side still insists on its provious position that no single Korean should be sent to the northern part of Korea and that no Korea -Japan talks should be resumed as long as the Japanese Red Cross continues its talks with the puppet Red Cross at Geneva ?
2. Whether the talks to be resumed is an overall talks or intended to be a talks only on the repatriation of Korean residents including the question of legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan ?
3. Whether or not, with regard to the question of the "due compensation",the Korean side would have any objection if the U.S. side obtained an advance assurance that the Japanese side would agree in principle to make a lump sum payment to the Korean side under the name of "financial settlement"? If the unconditional resumption of the Korea -Japan talks should be literally "unconditional" except on the question of compensation, it should be that the Korean side agree to resume the talks without regard to the JRC -puppet talks at Geneva. If Korea agrees to this, the United States would be willings to use its good offices.
4. Unless the Korean side resumed the talks on unconditional basis as mentioned above, there would be no use for resuming the Korea -Japan talks because such a talks, even if resumed, would be doomed to break off again, and if so, it would be advisable to have no talks resumed at all.
5. If the Korea -Japan talks are resumed, and if the Korean side should request the ICRC authorities not to take any action on the JRC -puppet agreement as long as the Korea -Japan talks are in progress, the latter may accept such a request any talks with the puppet side as long as the Korea -Japan talks are in session, while the puppet side would issue a ultimatum requesting the Japanese side to sign the agreement.
As the Japanese side would answer that it could be assumed that the puppet sude might break off the talks after placing all the blame for the rupture on the Japanese side. However, as the Korea -Japan talks would consume a considerablly long period of time, the ICRC might come to approve the JRC -puppet agreement(under conditions that the ICRC positively participates in the individual screening to determine whether they are really desirous of going to the northern part of Korea ). Under the circumstances, even though there is a possibility that the puppet side might break off the talks with the JRC, as far as the ICRC is concerned, there is no guarantee that it would issue an announcement to the effect that the ICRC would not intervene in the issue.
If all those Korean residents desirous of returning to the Republic of Korea are received by the Republic of Korea with compensation from Japan while the legal status for those Koreans wishing to remain in Japan is regulated, no government on earth would be able to forcefully emigrate those Koreans who wish neither to go to the Republic of Korea nor to stay in Japan. The Korea -Japan talks is where the Korean Government is to negotiate with the Japanese Government to settle the problems of the absolute majority of the Korean residents in Japan who are loyal to the Republic of Korea. What is to the national interest of Korea if the Korean Government broke off the Korea -Japan talks solely on account of the fact that a few Communist Koreans in Japan went to northern part of Korea ?
If the Korean Government retained its present position, a considerable number of Koreans would be actually going to the nothern part of Korea any way while the status of the majority Koreans in Japan would be left unregulated, which fact would make the complaints of the Korean residents in Japan against the Korean Government to grow. As the Korean Government would not stop from returning to the Republic of Korea those Koreans who are desirous of returning to Korea even without compensation from Japan, the result would be that those Korean residents in Japan are going where they want after all only without receiving due compensation from Japan.
To these question of Ambassador Dowling, the Foreign Minister answered as follows:
1. The resumption of the Korea -Japan talks is literally unconditional, that is, the Japanese side should not insist on its having the talks with the puppet regime, while the Korean side would not demand Japan to abandon its talks with the puppet Red Cross.
If we are to follow the Ameracan version, it would mean that Japan is free from taking any action on the deportation of Koreans, which is nothing but a virtual capitulation of Korean position before the Japanese position. This is not the time for the United States to argue on the clarification of whether the resumption of the Korea -Japan talks should be conditional or unconditional. The Korea -Japan talks should first of all be resumed and the issue of those Koreans desirous of returning to the Republic of Korea or of remaining in Japan be discussed between the two government.
By "unconditional resumption," if you mean an advance consent of the Korean side to the sending of those Koreans to Communist areas, we cannot accept your definition in this respect.
2. Although the priority would be placed on the issue of Korean residents in Japan, what we mean is the resumption of overall talks.
3. Regarding the compensation issue, it is a matter of technical terminology, but we can hardly understand the reason why you are using the term of "financial settlement" after you have so far used the term of "compensation" in your conversation with His Excellency President Rhee.
Ambassador Dowling said that, if are to follow the idea of compensation, it must be done on the individual basis of actual evidence such as records of forced labor, etc. and that, since such investigation is almost impossible, be said he suggested the idea of lump sum payment. He said that it has no particular meaning and that if the Korean side agreed to the unconditional resumption of the talks, the U.S. side would employ pressure on Japan to pay compensation to Korea. He said that what counts is to receive money from Japan and it is not very important under what name it is received.
OBSERVATION AND RECOMPENDATION
It is impossible to resume the Korea -Japan talks if we are to make all the arrangements therefor through talks with the U.S. side. If we conduct discussions with the U.S. side without taking any action, the time will run against us. The ICRC is urging us to submit a "constructive" opinion of ours before August 6 when it is to resume its session for deliberation on the JRC -puppet agreement, and if we are to continue to voice our opposition without giving our opinion, the ICRC might proceed toward making final decision on the matter, which might deprive us of an opportunity to influence the ICRC to our advantage.
Now that we received the U.S. reaction, it is recommended that Ambassador Yiu be instructed to hand over to the Japanese Foreign Minister the AIDE MEMOIRE which Your Excellency approved and make a representation to the ICRC, while unilaterally making an announcement as scheduled on the Government decision to release the Japanese fishermen who have served out their sentences and to receive those Koreans in the Omura Camp to Korea.
PROSPECT
In the Aide Memoire which Ambassador Yiu will deliver to Japanese Foreign Minister, we carefully avoided the words which may unnecessarily offend the
Japanese side. In reaction to the said representation, however, the Japanese side may feel two difficultion: one, compensation which Japan should pay for mass repatriates; the other, proceeding of the talks to be resumed with special emphasis on the problems of Korean residents in Japan. Unless the United States stands between the two sides, it is not possible at this time to be assured in advance that due compensation will be made for the mass repatriates. But if the said Aide Memoire is theoretically interpreted, it is point is no condition for resumption of the overall talks but a guiding principle which we set forth in advance for the future session of the Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan.
On the other hand, we attached special emrbasis on the problem of Korean residents in Japan in the overall talks to be resumed, But this does not necessarily mean that the alter agenda items will not be discussed at that talks.
There is no ground in which the Japanese side refuses to resume the talks unconditionally.
Will the Japanese side agree to unconditional resumption of the talks? The Japanese side may first request us for clarification as to whether the resumed talks should take up the issue of the so-called "repatriation" of Korean residents in Japan to the northern part of Korea if they are to favorably respond to our position. This point is what we deliberately refrained from mentioning. But an implication is that there is no change in our position for asking Japan to abandon their deportation scheme; but we temporarily shelved discussion of this issue in the belief that this issue would gradually be less significant if a mass repatriation of Koreans to the Republic of Korea is, sucessfully which carried out. This clarification if ▣...▣ we can offer to Japan at this stage of the development.
If Japan refuses our offer of "unconditional resumption of the talks", there is no alterantive but utilizing at maximum their refusal of discussion to seek verdict of world public opinion.

Most respectfully,