竹島問題の歴史

10.8.08

1951 Coversation of Yu Chan Yang with John F. Dulles.

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part Eight







(click to enlarge)
From: "Foreign Realtions of the United States" 1951, Asia and the Pacific. Volume VI, Part 1, pp. 1182-1184.
-----------
------------
To follow is from a memorandum of conversation of Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador, with Amabasador John Foster Dulles, Robert A. Fearey and Arthur B. Emmons. The conversation took place in Washington on July 9th, 1951.

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Korean
Affairs in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Emmons)


SECRET

[Washington,] July 9, 1951.


Subject: Japanese Peace Treaty

Participants: Dr. Yu Chan Yang, Korean Ambassador

Ambassador John Foster Dulles

Mr. Robert A Fearey, FE

Mr. Arthur B Emmons, 3rd., Officer in Charge, Korean Affairs


The Korean ambassador called on Ambassador Dulles at 11:30 this
morning by prior appointment. Ambassador Dulles opened the conversation by
handing Ambassador Yang the text of the latest draft of the Japanese peace
treaty. He explained to the Ambassador that this draft should be considered
Secret until its publication. He also stated that the Department would instruct
Ambassador Muccio to make a copy of the draft available right away to the ROK
Government.


Ambassador Dulles pointed out to the Korean ambassador that the ROK Government would not be a signatory to the treaty, since only those nations in a state of war with Japan and which were signatories of the United Nations Declaration of January 1942 would sign the treaty. He pointed out, however, that Korea would benefit from all of the
general provisions of the treaty equally with other nations.


Ambassador Yang expressed his surprise that ROK would not be
included as a signatory, and protested that the Korean Provisional Government
had, in fact, been in a state of war with Japan even for many years prior to World War II. He stressed that there had been a Korean division in China which had
fought against the Japanese and that a declaration of war against Japan had been made by the Korean Provisional Government. The Korean ambassador therefore, considered on this basis that Korea should be a signatory. Mr. Frearey pointed out that the Unites States Government had never given recognition to the Korean Provisional Government.


The Korean Ambassador then asked whether the Islands of Tsushima
was to given to Korea under the terms of the treaty, stating that Tsushima properly belonged to Korea.
Ambassador Dulles took exception to this statement and pointed out that Japan had been in full control of Tsushima for a very long period of time; the treaty therefore did not affect the present status of Tsushima as a minor Japanese island.


Ambassador Yang then asked whether the treaty included provisions
which would restrict Japanese fishing in waters in the vicinity of the Korean
peninsula, pointing out that this matter had already been a source of friction
between Korea and Japan, which boded no good for future Korean-Japanese relations. He stated that some 34 fishing vessels had recently been intercepted and arrested by the ROK Navy while fishing in waters beyond the so-called MacArthur Line. Dr. Yang stressed the vital importance to the Korean economy of controlling such unrestricted Japanese fishing activities in waters close to Korea.
Ambassador Dulles replied that the treaty did not include provisions which would govern fishing in specific high seas areas and that to have included such provisions would have meant a very serious delay in the conclusion of the treaty, since there were many national fishing interests
concerned. He explained that the treaty, as such, could not be permitted to
become an international fishing convention for the Pacific but that it did
contain provisions for the negotiation of bilateral or multilateral fishing
agreements with Japan. Ambassador Dulles emphasized that the Department had been under considerable pressure from various quarters, including Unites States and Canadian fishing interests, to write specific restrictions on Japanese fishing into the treaty, but that in the interest of getting the treaty through as quickly as possible
this pressure had been resisted in every instance.


In further connection with the fishing question, Ambassador Yang
raised the point that, if Japan were to be allowed to re-arm, there would
not be any future guarantee that control over fishing or other international
problems, including the general security of the area, could effectively be
exercised over Japan. Ambassador Dulles then discussed the undesirability of a restrictive treaty, pointing out that restrictions in the past, as for instance at Versailles, had inevitably resulted in their becoming a challenge to the country upon which they were imposed and a psychological target for national opposition. He believed that more subtle methods of control would be more effective, pointing out that the United States would have troops in Japan and that the Unites States and other Pacific nations could control the flow of raw materials into Japan and the level of its war-making
potential. He added that the Unites States and the other Pacific nations
were fully alive to the danger inherent in a resurgence of Japanese military
strength and were determined to control this danger through all of the extensive
means at their disposal; in so doing the security interests of Korea would naturally be a factor.
Ambassador Dulles also referred to the threat presented by Russian attempts to
win Japan away from the West and stated that from this point of view a moderate and workable treaty with Japan was most desirable.


Mr. Emmons suggested that the Korean Ambassador might be
interested in the provisions of the treaty which dealt with bilateral
negotiations between Japan and other interested Powers on
such collateral questions as high seas fishing. Ambassador Dulles read the
Korean Ambassador pertinent sections of the treaty dealing with this
question.


In closing the conversation Ambassador Yang expressed his desire
to have an opportunity for further discussions with Ambassador Dulles,
presumably after receipt of instructions from his Government.

This is a very interesting record. The Korean Ambassador only claimed Tsushima, definitely an integral part of Japan, but not Liancourt Rocks. Apparently, as his claim was instantly rejected, they would bring another target to the next conversation 10 days later. The Ambassador also told about the MacArthur Line in conjunction with the fishing problem, this may have been a hint of the future Rhee Syngman Line and the Liancourt Rocks issue.

10 comments:

  1. Dear pacifist,

    아래 블로그의 글을 읽어 주시기 바랍니다.

    일본인의 주장을 완벽하게 반박하고 있습니다.

    Blog[url]http://blog.naver.com/cms1530[/url]

    1906.07.13 황성신문 울도군의 배치 전말 (鬱島郡의 配置顛末)

    +++

    1900년 칙령 41호의 石島 = 1906년의 심흥택 보고서의 獨島 = 1906년의 황성신문의 石島

    ReplyDelete
  2. my sweet lord,

    의견을 감사합니다.
    이 기사에 대해서는 이미 Gerry가 논하고 있습니다.나에게는 이 기사가 한국측의 유리한 증거가 된다고는 생각되지 않습니다.


    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/02/july-1906-korea-omits-dokdo-from-uldo.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. 이 블로그를 보면서, 일본도 독도에 대한 집착이 상당히 오래전부터 있어왔다는 것에 대해서 많이 놀랐습니다.

    특히, 당연히 독도가 한국의 영토라고 말하고 있지만, 논리와 증거를 대라고 누가 물어보면 잘 대답할 수 없다는 것도 알게 되었습니다.

    하지만, 한국에는 많은 자료가 있습니다. 독도 문제에 있어서도 감정적이기 보다는 논리적으로 변하고 있습니다. 저 또한, 많이 배우고 있습니다.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Boggs%27s_memo
    There is a interesting memo and the recognation of Korean Embassy just before the Rusk note. Please refer to this series.

    ReplyDelete
  5. けぺ様

    Thanks, I already know it. But before that article I have to post a few more articles as I am posting in chronological order.
    Anyway, thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. my sweet lord,

    진지 더 대답을 감사합니다.우리는(실례입니다만) 이승만 정권에 훔쳐졌다고 하는 생각이 강하고, 한국의 말은 나중에 취해 붙인 것 같은 변명으로 들립니다.

    그러나, 우리는 과학적인 눈, 냉정한 눈으로 사물을 판단해야 합니다.한국측에 1905년 이전에 이 섬을 확실히 지배하고 있었다고 하는 확고한 증거가 있으면, 한국의 영유권을 인정합니다.

    부디 확고한 증거를 보여 주세요.       
    어쨌든, 이 문제를 계기로 양국이 싸움 하지 않고, 사이 좋게 될 수 있도록(듯이) 희망합니다.이번 부산에 생선회를 먹으러 갑니다.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear pacifist,

    한국의 시각에서 독도는 한국의 땅이지만, 제 삼자의 시각에서도 인정 받기 위해서는 증거와 논리가 있어야 한다는 것을 많은 사람들이 인식하고 있습니다.

    과거의 역사에서 독도로 인한 영토 문제를 심각하게 생각하지는 않은 것 같습니다. 그로 인하여, 독도에 대한 기록도 많이 남기지는 않은 것 같습니다.

    하지만, 분명히 한국의 논리를 뒷받침할 수 있는 증거자료가 많이 있습니다. 기다려 주시기 바랍니다.

    부산에서 생선회 맛있게 드시고, 언젠가는 독도 문제가 잘 해결되어 일본인도 독도에 방문할 수 있었으면 합니다. 현재에는 일본국적의 외국인은 독도를 방문할 수가 없군요.

    ReplyDelete
  8. my sweet lord,

    확고한 증거를 보여 주시도록 부탁합니다.그런데, lord씨는 독도는 옛날에는 한국에서 뭐라고 불리고 있었다고 생각입니까?

    옛부터 알아 아픈들 이름이 있을 것입니다만, Usando는 독도가 아니고, Seokdo도 독도는 아니라고 하면, 뭐라고 불리고 있었는지요?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear pacifist,

    일본은, 한국인이 과거에 독도의 위치에 대해서 몰랐었다고 주장하고 있습니다.

    독도에 대해서 몰랐다고 한다면, 그에 대한 이름도 없었겠지요.

    하지만, 문헌에는 여러 이름들이 존재하고 있습니다. 그 이름에 대한 논의는 생략하겠습니다.

    한때, 을릉도에는 35,000명의 인원이 거주했었다고 합니다. 지금은 육지로 인구가 떠나서 1/3 정도 남아 있다고 합니다. 과거에는 훨씬 적은 인원이 살았었겠지요.

    우산국이라는 나라가 존재했었고, 2.4km 떨어진 작은 섬을 가지고 독도 논리를 펼치는 것에 대해서는 상식적으로 억지 주장에 가깝다는 생각이 듭니다.

    제가 반론을 하기에는 아직 부족한 점이 많군요. 저는 더 공부하겠습니다. 감사합니다.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dear my sweet lord,

    「문헌에는 많은 이름들이 존재하고 있습니다」라고 말씀하신다면, 그 이름을 실제로 들어 주세요.
    「우산간 지방이라고 하는 나라가 존재했다」 것은 사실입니다.그러나 그 나라는 울능도를 중심으로 한 지역이며, 독도를 포함하고 있었다고 하는 문헌적인 증거는 전혀 없습니다.

    한국인이 1905년보다 전에 독도에 자력으로 도착했다고 하는 기록은 전혀 없습니다.그런데도 어째서 영유권을 주장할 수 있는 것입니까?

    어떨까 한국이 독도를 영유 할 수 있는 증거를 나타내 주세요.옛날은 뭐라고 불리고 있었을지도 가르쳐 주세요.

    ReplyDelete