Tokyo, October 13, 1958

 

GIST OF TALKS

FOURTEENTH SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON VESSELS, COMMITTEE ON KOREAN TALKS

 

1. Time and Place:

October 7, 1958, 03:00 p.m. - 04:05 p.m. at Room 411 of the Japanese Foreign Ministry

 

2. Conferees:

Korean side:

Mr. LEE, Ho
Mr. CHEE, CHOUL KEUN
Mr. CHIN, Pil Shik
MR. MOON, CHUL SOON
Mr. OEM, YOUNG DAL
Mr. LEE, Won Ho

Japanese side:

Mr. TAKANO, TOKICHI
Mr. HANDA, GO
Mr. SUGANUMA, KIYOSHI
Mr. KATSUO, CHIRO
Mr. TSUCHIYA, MIMAO

 

3. Gist of Talks:

Mr. Takano:
As Mr. Awasana, Chief Member of the Japanese side, is not here on Account of his presence at the Diet, I will represent the Japanese side at this session.

Mr. Lee:
Before entering into conference, I would like to introduce Mr. Choul Keun Chee, new Korean Member of this Subcommittee, who is the Director of Fisheries Bureau of Office of Marine Affairs. Also I would like to present Mr. Moon, Asia Section Chief of the Foreign Ministry, Who is here not as Member of this Subcommittee but as observer.

Mr. Takano:
Is the Chief of the Asia Section going to attend the Subcommittee meeting as observer continuously from now on?

Mr. Lee:
Though he is a Member of both Committee on Friday and "Peace Line" and Legal Status of Korean Resident in Japan, he may be attending the Subcommittee meeting as observer from to time.

Mr. Takano:
At the last meeting of this subcommittee, the opinion of both sides differed on the last agenda item among the four items of the agenda. The Japanese side proposed to adopt one of the following three alternatives in this regard: 1) The phrase, "adopted on November 6, 1951," shall be applied to all rour items equally. 2) The question on the wording of agenda item D will be left for a later decision at the Subcommittee. 3) A group shall be compoaed to study the problem of the wording of agenda Item D. And the Japanese side decide to ask for instruction on the matter from the higher level. However, the Korean side, for its part, proposed to fix the phrase only to the fourth item of the agenda. At present, as the Japanese side has not yet received any instruction from the nigher authorities on this matter, I wonder if the Korean side to obtained may new instruction on this question.

Mr. Lee:
Now you have mentioned about the records of the past meetings at this Subcommittee. As I understand, at the last meeting of the Subcommittee, while the Korean side proposed to add the phrase, "as of November 6, 1951," to the fourth item of the proposed to add the phrase agenda, the Japanese side, for its part, proposed to apply the phrase, "adopted on November 6, 1951," to the all items of the agenda. The last meeting of the Subcommittee owned at that stage. The Korean side has not heard at past meetings of this Subcommittee about the other two Japanese alternative: 1) entering into discussions on substantial matters from agenda item A leaving the problems of the fixing the wording of agenda item D for later solution, and 2) setting up a group to tackle the problem of the wording thereof in this regard, So, it might have been at some informal meetings that the Japanese side mentioned about the above the alternatives. At any rate, since the matter has been brought up here, do you wish to propose those two alternatives officially now?

Mr. Takano:
With regard to the problem concerning our alternative proposals, I have to refer to the records of the past meeting for accurate Information. However, we would like to propose that the both sides proceed discussion on substantial matters from the agenda item A leaving one problem of the phrase of agenda item D for later discussion and solution.

Mr. Lee:
Then, is it correct to say this? That is while the Korean side proposes that phrase, "as of November 6, 1951," shall be added only to the fourth items of the agenda, the Japanese side three alternatives: 1) The phrase "adopted on November 6, 1951," shall be applied to the all items of the agenda; 2) The subcommittee proceed the discussions on substantial matters from agenda item A without deciding now the problem concerning the wording of agenda item D: end 3) The problem of the wording of item D shall be entrusted to another committee to be composed to tackle the problem.

Mr. Takano:
That is right. But, to call it a committee any not be appropriate. To call it a group may be more appropriate.

Mr. Lee:
Cannot the Japanese side reconsider and accept the Korean proposal of adding the phrase, "as of November 6, 1951," to the fourth item of the agenda?

Mr. Takano:
It is very difficult for us to do so.

Mr. Lee:
In view of the course of our discussions on the matter, the Korean side considers th Korean proposal most appropriate and fitting. Isn't there any room for the Japanese side to reconsider this proposal?

Mr. Takano:
In view of time course of discussions in the past, while the Korean side thinks the Korean proposal is most appropriate the Japanese side, for its part, is still of the opinion that the phrase, "adopted on November 6, 1951," should be applied to all items of the agenda.

Mr. Lee:
As I have mentioned a while ago, the Korean side still thinks that the Korean proposal with regard to the rest agenda items is most appropriate and becoming. However, according to circumstances, the Korean side thinks it feasible to enter into discussion on substantial matters from agenda item A without deciding now the question of agenda adoption regarding the items, C and D.

Mr. Takano:
Does want you have said imply that we discuss only the items, A and b, omitting the items, C and D?

Mr. Lee:
As the processing of this Subcommittee have been bogged down for a long time with the both sides of the confereces opposing to each other's opinion, owing to the problem of the agenda item D, and inasuch as the Talks, which have been suspended for long, are resumed as a result of considerable efforts, we propose to proceed with discussions on substantial matters from agenda A shelving, at the first stage, the question the agenda items C and D.

Mr. Takano:
We have been talking about the problem of the wording of the agenda item D. As the items C and D were already adopted, to shelve the problem is just as if the Korean side were to turn the handle of clock backward.

Mr. Lee:
Repeatedly speaking, as our talks have been resumed after a long suspension, it would not be ◆◆◆◆ for both sides to struggle on the wording of the item D of the agenda. And, in regard to the item, C, of the proposed agenda, the Korean side stated before that we could expect little out discussions of the matter. In this regard, I am afraid that it may only cause our headache. Therefore, the Korean side thinks it most appropriate, at present to proceed with discussions on substantial matters from item A leaving out the items, C and D.

Mr. Takano:
If there is anything causing our headache, don't we have to eliminate the cause of our headache? I wonder if it isn't a way to proseed our subcommittee works without being disturbed any more with the problem of the wording of a agenda item D.

Mr. Lee:
How do you think about our proposal of entering into substantial discussions leaving out the items, C and D, at the moment By leaving out the Item, C and D, we don't mean we will not discuss the matters, ever, but we Will shall the matters of items, C and D, for later discussion. I think, we have to obtain a certain substantial result of our talk anyway.

Mr. Takano:
Our trouble is only due to the wording of item D of the agenda, for item C of the agenda is already decided.

Mr. Lee:
The opinion of the Korean side differs from test of the Japanese side on that point. The Korean side thinks that the items, C and D, of the agenda are not decided yet, to say things correctly to the fact.

Mr. Takano:
1 am afraid there is some misunderstanding in this regard. As our understanding stands, the decision is already reached that discussion and solutions being made of the four items of the agenda. Our trouble was caused by the problem of the wording of the item D of the agenda. If we are not to discuss the items, C and D of the agenda, because they cause our headache it becomes inconsistent since the agenda have been already decided.

Mr. Lee:
Our view remains that it is most appropriate and natural to have the D of the agenda added with the phrase in question in case it could not be accepted by the Japanese side, we propose to proceed with discussions on substantial matters from items A deciding the problem of item C and D later.

Mr. Takano:
The Item C of him agenda has become odd because of the wording of the item D of the agenda.

Mr. Lee:
It seems that the Japanese side thinks the item C of the agenda has been already set. However, the Korean give has, in the past stated that we had better not discuss the item C, as nothing good will result from the discussions on the item C and D of the agenda as yet. Therefore, it is not inconsistent at all to propose that discussions on the items, C and D, be left behind to be brought up at later stance.

Mr. Takano:
As I have repeatedly said, the decision is made about the four items of the agenda. The Japanese side that is there is the problem of the wording with regard to the item D of the agenda. However, It ls unreasonable to omit Item C only because, as the Korean side proposes, it is expected that there will be no substantial result after al. We cannot tell anything before we have done anything about it.

Mr. Lee:
The Korea side would like to remain once again that no decision is so far made on the items C of the agenda. And the Korean side would like to propose once again that this Subcommittee meeting proceed with discussions on substantial matters leaving the question of item C and D behind~~ it does not mean that we will never discuss the items, C and D.

Mr. Takano:
The Japanese side finds difficulty is understanding what the Korean side has said. It is also hardly acceptable, for the Japanese side, that We have to retrogress on our Subcommittee proceeding because of the wording of the item D of the agenda, when the four items of the agenda have been decided to be discussed. The Japanese side can also hardly understand the Korean interpretation that the decision is not made on the problem of agenda.

Mr. Chin:
(Explaining) while we have been talking about on that would be the contents of the item C of the proposed agenda and what is of the item D there of, we have because stuck to the question the wording of item D. Therefore, it cannot to taken that the proposed item C and D have already been adopted by the Subcommittee.

Mr. Takano:
However, that is not very clear to us.

Mr. Lee:
Although the Japanese side said that the Korean proposal sonatitutes a retrogression on the Subcommittee proceedings, the Korean side doesn't think it a retrogression. It is a Korean proposal in answer to the Japanese proposa.

Mr. Takano:
The Japanese side thinks it a retrogression because it sounds wores that the other.

Mr. Lee:
The Korean side does not think that way. The Korean side thinks that the best is to add the phrase in question to the item D of the agenda. If not, the remaining alternative is to proceed discussions so substantial matters leaving the problem of the items, C and D.

Mr. Takano:
It not only makes our heads ache but also makes our stomachache ache.

(In a form of joke)

Mr. Lee:
Now, if the Japanese side thinks it more difficult to shelve the items C and D of the agenda, why don't you accept proposal that phrase in question be added to the item D of the agenda?

Mr. Takano:
As I have said, the Japanese side cannot do so. How is that the phrase in question be applied to all the items of the agenda?

Mr. Lee:
I don't like to make long explanation, but don't you think it most appropriate to add the phrase in question only to the item D of the agenda?

Mr. Takano:
The Japanese side, for its part, thinks that the phrase in question should either be applied to the all items of the agenda, or should be completely omitted.
We wonder if there isn't a good method.

Mr. Lee:
As the talks we resumed in friendly terms, the Korean side thought that the Japanese side would accept the Korean proposal.

Mr. Takano:
The Japanese side felt just the same way.
Do you have any good idea on how to proceed?

Mr. Lee:
Nothing particularly. what about your side?

Mr. Takano:
No, If there is not any good idea, how about meeting again at next meeting. When shall we hold next meeting?

Mr. Lee:
When, the Japanese side thinks, is most agreeable?

Mr. Takano:
How about next Tuesday, at 3:00 p.m.?

Mr. Lee:
No problem.

 

- The end-