仰決裁
12月 17日
局長
課長
HIGHLIGHTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH KOREA-JAPAN TALKS
(April 15 - December 1, 1958)
I, The following is the highlights of proceedings of each Committee or Sub-Committee:
1. Committee on Korean Claims
(I) Sub-Committee on Korea Art Objects
On April 16, 1958, the Japanese Government actually turned over 106 items of Korean art objects, which are generally of little value and it also presented us a list of 489 items of art objects without making any commitment as to whether and when it would be ready to turn over them to us. Ever since, the Japanese side has refused to turn over any additional item of Korean art objects. They even declined to comment on the list of about 1,000 items of art objects we presented to them. They received the said list only "for information or reference.", because a "basic policy" was not yet decided. This is tantamount to nullifying the ORAL STATEMENT of December 31, 1957, in which the Japanese Government expressed its illingness to turn over Korean art objects. They used to say as if the settlement of this question had been connected with that of the other questions.
(2) Sub-Committee on Vessels
The real intention of the Japanese side on the vessel question emerged unmistakably from the beginning of discussions agenda item A, that is, "return of the vessels registered in Korea as of August 9, 1945". Our request for the return of those vessels was made on the ground of SCAPIN No.2168 which was issued on the basis of the United States Military Government Ordinance No.33. Despite the indisputable legal basis of our request, the Japanese side denied its legal obligation to return the vessels under agenda item A even stating that the so-called SCAPIN was invalidated by virtue of coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This Japanese contention is tantamount to denial of the U.S. Military Government Ordinance No.33 on which the SCAPIN was based. Thus the proceeding of this sub-committee has been almost stalemated in the course of discussion on agenda item A.
2. Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan
Our side is requesting special status and treatment only for those Korean residents who entered into Japan prior to the termination of the Pacific war and their descendants. As for other Koreans in Japan, we expect nothing more than that accorded to other aliens in general in Japan. We naturally believe that those Korean residents who entered into Japan prior to the termination of the Pacific war deserve special status or treatment different from that accorded to other aliens in general because the circumstances in which they were forced to come to Japan are entirely different from ones in which other aliens came to Japan. Nevertheless, the Japanese side is prepared to accord the Korean residents only such treatment as within the scope of its domestic laws and regulations which are applicable to aliens in general. Since our side could not expect any constructive proposal on the part of the Japanese side under these circumstances, our side proposed a draft agreement on the legal status of Korean residents in Japan which is now under discussion at this Committee. In putting forward numerous questions on the proposed draft agreement, the Japanese side showed its profound concern mainly in the question of deportation of Korean residents in Japan, thus making it unmistakable that the Japanese Government is attempting to take every opportunity to deport Korean residents in Japan. Needless to say, the main task of this Committee should be to provide for legal foundation on which the Korean residents in question can make their livings without worry in Japan, not to provide for legal pretext for the deportation of them. Although it is still premature to predict exactly to what extent the Japanese side will get along with us on this question, in the light of recent attitude of the Japanese side we can hardly expect that the Japanese side will agree to the substance of our proposal as it now stands.
3. Committee on Fisheries and Peace Line
In October, the Japanese side proposed a gist of fishery agreement to be concluded between Korea and Japan, which clearly implied its flat denial of our Peace Line and totally neglected the current international practice and trend in this field. Our side rejected the proposal stating that it could not be the basis of discussion. Several weeks later (November 28), the Japanese side, withdrawing the said proposal, submitted another one of fishery agreement which is also hardly worthy of serious consideration. The new Japanese proposal is mainly to regulate fishing in the areas closely adjacent to the Korean peninsulas including even such areas as considered to fall within our territorial waters in total disregard of the recent trend of international law and practice to respect the special interest and right of the coastal State over its adjacent waters. Under these circumstances, we can hardly expect to reach a satisfactory agreement with Japan on this question, although we so far refrained from making flat refusal of the Japanese proposal in the spirit of preventing the rupture of the talks.
II. General Review
As seen in the above, the talks made little progress in spite of our strenuous efforts. But for patience on our part, the talks would have been ruptured long ago. The Japanese side so far showed its concern only over the question of fisheries. It seems that the Japanese side is deliberately connecting the settlement of every question with that of the fishery question despite that the other questions in their nature have nothing to do with the fishery question, as if the talks were solely for the settlement of fishery dispute.
We have naturally hoped to reach a quick settlement. The Japanese side seems not interested in a quick settlement, employing delaying tactics in various ways. A few examples of such Japanese attitude can be seen in these: 1) The Japanese side used to propose to postpone or adjourn the meetings. Even in the Fishery and Peace Line Committee, they proposed to postpone the meeting thrice in November. 2) In every meeting, the Japanese side used to say that they were not ready to present their own proposal since they received no instructions or because the basic policy of their Government was not decided, as in the case of the Subcommittee on Korean Art Objects of which mention was already made.
3) On frequent occasions, they confined themselves to "personal views", reserving formal and official views". We asked no reparation which we deserve to, but we sought nothing except what the Japanese had stolen or removed from Korea, or liquidation of its debt to Korea, and justice for Korean residents who were compelled to go there during the occupation period. Nevertheless, the Japanese side so far refrained not only from making actual turn-over of them or any liquidation but also from making any commitment to do so, as we have seen in the case of art objects or vessels. As for the question of the Korean residents in Japan, the Japanese side even tries to abrogate what both sides agreed on at the time of the previous conferences. For instance, they are even hesitant to admit the simple provision that "Koreans in Japan are nationals of the Republic of Korea". Under these circumstances, we can hardly expect that the talks will turn out a success without change of attitude on the part of the Japanese side.