竹島問題の歴史

17.8.08

1951 April - May: Joint UK and USA Draft

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Extra(1)

A Pro-Korean website comments as follows; The fatal flaw in Japan's interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is their misleading conclusion the agreement was between the U.S. Government and Japan. In reality, about 48 countries participated in the negotiations. Naturally other nations, such as the United Kingdom and commonwealth members, had views that weren't in line with U.S. policy” The website is trying to make their readers believe that UK and other nations were against the U.S. decision concerning the sovereignty of Liancourt Rocks.

But this commentary is not right. The draft which UK brought to USA indicated that Liancourt Rocks to be out of Japan’s territory indeed as earlier American drafts did, but the point the UK objected to the American draft was how to represent the territory of Japan, whether Liancourt Rocks were Japanese or Korean territory was not a problem. The UK draft that is shown below was providing the territory in the area within a line which was written using latitudes and longitudes in details.


To follow is the original UK draft, which was made on April 7th, 1951.



Part I. - Territorial Clauses


ARTICIE l

Japanese sovereignty shall continue over all the islands and adjacent islets and rocks lying within an area bounded by a line from latitude 30°N, in a north-westerly direction to approximately latitude 33°N. 128 ° E. then northward between the islands of
Quelpart, Fukue-Shima bearing north - easterly between Korea and the island of
Tsushima, continuing in this direction with the islands of Oki-Retto to the south-east and
Take Shima to the north-west curving with the coast of Honshu, then northerly skirting
Rebun Shima passing easterly through Soya Kaikyo approximately 142° E., then in
a south-easterly direction parallel to the coast of Hokkaido to 145° 30’ E.
entering Numero Kaikyo at approximately 44° 30’ N. in a south-westerly direction
to approximately 43° 45' N. and 145° 15' E., then in a south-easterly direction
to approximately 43° 35' N. 145 ' 35' E., then bearing north-easterly to
approximately 44° N., so excluding Kunashiri, and curving to the east and then
bearing south-westerly to include Shikotan at 147° 5' E., being the most
easterly point, then in a south-westerly direction with the coastlin6 towards
the Nanpo Group of Islands curving south to include Sofu-Gan (Lot's Wife) at 29°
50' N., veering to the north-west towards the coast of Honshu, then at
approximately 33° N. turning south-westerly past Shikoku to 30° N. to include
YakuShima and excluding Kuchino Shima and the Ryuku Islands south of latitude
30° North. The line above described is plotted on the map attached to the
present treaty (Annex I).(') In the case of a discrepancy between the map
attached to the textual description of the line, the latter shall prevail.


FROM:The National Archives of the United Kingdom FO371/92538,FJ1022/222


USA had a different opinion concerning how to express the territory. They preferred simple way. So representatives of the both countries had meetings on various dates including April 25th and 2nd May 1951 to produce the Joint U.S.-U.K. Draft which was made on May 3rd 1951.



Below is from the rercord of the U.S.U.K. Meeting on April 25, 1951:


SECRET
Anglo - American Meetings on Japanese Peace Treaty.

Summary Record of First Meeting held in Washington at 10.30 a.m. on the 25th April.


Present were:

United Kingdom

Mr. C.H. Johnston

Mr. G.G. Fitzmurice

Miss Dennehy

Mr. F.S. Tomlison

Mr. K.R.C. Pridham

United States

Mr. John M. Allison
Brig. Gen. Conrad Snow

Mr. Robert A. Fearly

Mr. Noel Hemmendinger

Mr. C. Arnold Fraleigh

Mr. Douglas Overton

[...]


CHAPTER II.


Mr. Allison said that the American View was that our defining of the Japanese boundaries would have a bad psychological effect on the Japanese and emphasize the contraction of their country. The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary
to avoid confusion.


FROM:The National Archives of the United Kingdom FO371/92545, FJ1022/342


And below is the record of the U.S.U.K. Meeting on May 2, 1951:

SECRET

1076/357/510

Anglo - American Meetings on Japanese Peace Treaty.

Summary Record of Seventh Meeting held at 10.30 a.m. on the 2nd
May, in Washington


Present were:

United Kingdom

Mr. C.H. Johnston

Mr. G.G. Fitzmurice

Mr. F.A. Vallat

Mr. F.S. Tomlison

Mr. K.R.C. Pridham

United States

Mr. John M. Allison

Brig. Gen. Conrad Snow

Mr. Robert A. Fearly


[...]

UNITED STATES CHAPTER III


Both Delegations agreed that it would be preferable to specify
only the territory over which Japan was renouncing sovereignty. In
this connection, United States Article 3 would require the insertion of the
three islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. It was left undecided whether
the sentence in British Article 2 requiring Japan to recognize whatever
settlement the United Nations might make in Korea should be maintained or not.
It was agreed that further consideration should be given to the drafting of the
sentence dealing with Japan’s renunciation of her mandates.

[...]


BRITISH EMBASSY,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

2nd May, 1951




FROM:The National Archives of the United Kingdom FO371/92547,FJ1022/376

















They reached an agreement finally. They abandoned to express the territory in details using latitudes and longitudes, instead they adopted a simple expression as USA insisted – the islands which Japan should renounce were written as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. It omitted Liancourt Rocks. At this point, UK didn’t oppose the American thought – so one can say that UK admitted that Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory as USA decided.


Below is the record of the Joint U.S.-U.K. Draft made on May 3, 1951:

CHAPTER II

TERRITORY

Article 2


Japan renounces all rights, titles and claims to Korea (including Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet)', [Formosa and the Pesca-dores]; and also all rights, titles and claims in connection with the mandate system, [or based on any past activity of Japanese nationals in the Antarctic area]. Japan accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of April 2, 1947, in relation to extending the trusteeship system to Pacific .Islands formerly under mandate to Japan. (U.K. reserves position on passages between square brackets.)


(Foreign Relations of the United States; 1951 Vol.VI p.p. 1024-1026)



No comments:

Post a Comment