A close examination of Counselor Kubota’s consistent legal reasoning, the breakdown of the Japan–Korea talks, the Rhee Line, the occupation of Takeshima, and a critical contrast with the Asahi Shimbun’s reporting.

June 8, 2016

The following continues from the previous chapter.
All emphasis in the text other than the heading is mine.

Japan stated that Korea’s independence prior to the entry into force of the peace treaty was a violation of international law.
Japan stated that the fact that Japanese people were sent back naked from Korea after the end of the war was a violation of international law.
Japan stated that the United States and Korea were violating international law with regard to claims.
Japan stated that the expression “a state of slavery” in the Cairo Declaration was written in a state of wartime excitement.

Counselor Kubota replied that Korea’s independence was, from Japan’s perspective, exceptional, but that it was not a question of whether it violated international law; that he neither said nor did not say that the repatriation of Japanese was a violation of international law; that the U.S. military government also did not commit a violation of international law; and that the effect of the Cairo Declaration was that it had been written in a state of wartime excitement.
He answered that Japanese rule over Korea had bad aspects, but also good aspects.

Representative Kim merely repeated the same point, stating that “the Japanese representative’s remarks are destructive.”

At the meeting on October 21, 1953, the Korean side stated that unless Kubota’s remarks were withdrawn and acknowledged as wrong, continuation of the talks would be impossible.
Counselor Kubota responded that although Korea claimed Japan was being unconstructive, Korea had forcibly declared the Rhee Line immediately before the 1952 Japan–Korea talks and had seized Japanese fishing vessels, thereby worsening the atmosphere; that these acts constituted violations of international law; that the principle was to bring such matters before the International Court of Justice; that it was natural to express one’s views at international conferences; that it was inappropriate to publicize them abroad as if they were outrageous remarks; that he would not withdraw them; and that he did not believe his remarks were erroneous.

The Korean side stated that it could no longer attend the talks and that responsibility lay entirely with Japan; the talks ended, and Korea, in retaliation for the so-called “Kubota delusions,” established the Rhee Line and occupied Takeshima.

At the House of Councillors on October 27, Counselor Kubota testified that the Korean side was under the mistaken impression that it was a “victorious nation” with respect to Japan, and that there was also an idea that because “a new international law concerning the independence of oppressed peoples had been created, everything must be subordinated to it,” Korea was a favored child of the international community, but that both notions were “without any basis.”

Furthermore, in a top-secret official document dated October 26, 1953, titled “Post-Breakdown Measures for the Japan–Korea Talks,” Counselor Kan’ichirō Kubota of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote that no resolution was possible unless Korea came down from its arrogant position in the clouds, and after analyzing Korean temperament as “submissive to the strong and overbearing toward the weak,” he left a recommendation that the overthrow of the Rhee Syng-man administration should be initiated.
The Asahi Shimbun, which reported the existence of this document on June 15, 2013, identified Kubota’s remarks as the cause of the breakdown of the Japan–Korea negotiations.

The Kubota Statement was withdrawn on December 31, 1957, at a meeting between Foreign Minister Aiichirō Fujiyama and Ambassador Kim Yu-taek.

This manuscript continues.