"Koreans in Japan"

Korea, Japan, and their affiliates as historical variables

By William Wetherall

First posted 18 October 2009
Last updated 10 October 2010

Entities, affiliations, and status

Archaelogical evidence reveals that interactions beween people on what is now the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archepelago go back many millennia. Historical accounts of such interactions go back nearly two thousand years, also to times before "Korea" and "Japan" existed as such. Even by the end of the first millennium in the Christian Era, when the major contenders for political power in these two regions have become the nominally single countries of Korea and Japan, these entities continued to change in ways that defy the notion that "Korea" and "Japan" have ever been "constant" much less "singular".

In other words, "Korea" and "Japan" have always been complex variables in an equation that has to be evaluated at each point on the timeline of their mutual histories. The boundaries of the two countries sometimes overlapped.

Antiquity to present

In earlier times, Koreans came to Japan, became Japanese, married into local clans including the those that married into the Yamato court, and contributed to the bloodline of future sovereigns. In more recent times -- a century ago as of 2010 -- the entirety of Korea became part of Japan and Koreans became Japanese.

Then in 1945 the Empire of Japan collapsed in defeat by the Allied Powers and Korea and Koreans were "liberated" from Japanese rule and status -- to a point. Korea's separation from Japan was not formally confimred until 1952, and only then did Koreans formally lose the Japanese nationality that had derived from Korea's territorial affiliation with Japan.

By 1952, however, there were two Korean states, the result of a divided Allied occupation of the peninsula in 1945, the United States south, and the Soviet Union north, of the 38th parallel. The two states, the Republic of Korea (ROK)and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), established in 1948, claimed to be the governments of the same "Korea" and the same "Koreans". And by 1950 the two states were at war.

The Korean war, which continued until 1953 -- the ideological coldwar rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union, and between their allies, which fed the Korean War -- strong animosities toward Japan on the part of both Koreas -- Japan's defensiveness toward Korean nationalism, and insecurity about its own national interests -- among other factors -- conspired to delay a normalization treaty between Japan and ROK until 1965. And -- as of 2010 -- ROK and DPRK remain in state of armistice, and the United States, ROK, and Japan have yet to establish normal relations with DPRK.

Historiography

Given such interstate entanglements -- which inevitably effect the constitution of nations, and complicate the lives of the individuals and families who get swept up in the legal convolutions -- how can one write an intelligent history that accurately reflects the vicissitudes of names and statuses of entities and their affiliated populations?

How, moreover, can an historian -- of politics, law, society, whatever -- separate the raceless legal nomenclature for entities and affiliates, from the racialist terminology that journalists and scholars are apt to adopt from the vernacular whether they embrace or criticize the views of ethnonationalists?

An historian's difficulties are multiplied by the need to to choose, or not choose, between the cooodinate systems, say, Japanese law and the international treaties that have both informed and reflected Japanese law, or ROK law and related treaties, or DPRK law and related treaties.

Then there is the problem of language -- the fashions of, say, English usage in American mass media and academia, which are likely to reflect America's obsession with race boxes and race-based identity politics, which have a strong influence on global "multiculturalist" movements. Journalistic and academic writing in English about Koreans in Japan, for example, are more likely to have been Made in USA than Made in Japan.

Understanding

Perhaps the most important consideration -- when choosing a vantage point from which one attempts to understand something -- is what or who is to benefit or suffer from an improvement in understanding. Understanding comes at a price, and the historian, who faciliates understanding, must take responsibility for its consequences.

If speaking of "Koreans in Japan", then I would think that the object would be to understand "Koreans" who are "in Japan". However one defines "Koreans in Japan" it seems essential that they be understood in terms how they deal with formal and informal conditions that are peculiar to Japan.

Because Koreans in Japan deal with their conditions as individuals and families, sometimes through the agency of state, local, or community communities, organizations, and bureaucracies, it seems paramount that they be regarded as a complex population, that they not be reduced to a "minority" or "group" or "community" -- that the categorical "they" never be taken to represent a singularity except when it is clear that "they" share one or more traits in common.

The only single trait "Koreans in Japan" obviously share is that they are human. If objectively defined in terms of one or more of three Korean nationalities, then they also share the quality of being aliens. As aliens, though, they will scatter across the map of numerous statuses of residence shared by other aliens. And as residents of Japan, they will have more than not in common with Japanese residents, whose rights and duties also vary with personal and familial statuses.

For the treaties and other matters before, during, and after the period of annexation of Korea as Chosen, see Chosen: The legal integration of Korea.

For treaties related to the postwar status of Chosen as Korea, and of Korea as ROK and DPRK, see Territorial settlements: ROC and PRC, ROK and DPRK, and the USSR and Russia.

Top  

Koreans in Japan

Forthcoming.

By "Koreans in Japan" I mean people who are formally "Koreans" according to their legal status in "Japan" as defined at a particular time. Formally "Koreans" are people who are affiliated with "Korea" as an entity, the political quality of which varies with historical period. Formally "Japan" is also an entity whose borders have varied with historical period and at one time included Korea.

Top  

Korea

"Korea" -- as a pronoun for numerous more specific proper nouns in English and other languages -- can have any number of meanings depending on the period and context in which it is used. There is, inevitably, a huge gap in the formal meaning of "Korea" as a legal entity in the eyes of the states, and "Korea" as a informal reference to a real or country in the minds of people who may not agree with its legal status, or in the minds of people formed in one language .

The following list focuses on the varieties of "Korea" that have been

1. The Chosŏn Dynasty or other unified Korean entity on the what is today called the Korean peninsula up to 1897.
2. The Empire of Korea from 1897-1910, including the period from roughly 1905-1910, when the Empire of Korea because a protectorship of Japan.
3. Chōsen, a territory of the Empire of Japan, and part of Japan as a sovereign state, from 1910-1945.
4. Korea as an object of independence and liberation from Japanese influence, in the eyes of nationalists on the peninsula and elsewhere, from as early as the late 19th century, but especially from 1905, 1910, and 1919.
5. Korea as an object of liberation by the Allied Powers from the issuance of the Cairo Declaration in 1943.
6. Korea (Chōsen) that Japan provisionally abandonded when accepting the Potsdam Declaration in 1945, including the Cairo Declaration, as the terms of an unconditional surrender, and which Japan formally abandoned when it signed the principal instrument of surrender on 2 September 1945.
7. Korea (Chōsen) as a territory surrendered north of south of the 38th parallel of north latitude to USSR and US military forces during September 1945, and thereafter divided into north and south occupation zones, from 1945-1948.
8. Korea (Chōsen) which remained, after its divided occupation, a territory to be formally ceded to the Korean state that the Allied Powers intended to establish on the peninsula during its occupation.
9. The Republic of Korea (ROK), established in the American zone south of the 38th parallel on 15 August 1948.
10. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), established in the Soviet zone north of the 39th parallel on 9 September 1948.
11. The "Korea" (Chōsen) that remained an object of territorial settlement in the eyes of the Allied Powers and Japan -- despite the establishment of two Korean states, each claiming essentially the same right to govern the former Japanese territory of Chōsen and its people -- and despite the formal recognition by the General Assembly of the United Nations in late 1948 of ROK as the only legitimate government on the peninsula.
12. The contested territory of "Korea" (Chōsen) that became the stage of the "Korean War" of 1950-1953, which ended in a stalemate and truce at the 38th parallel where the peninsula had been divided in 1945.
13. The "Korea" (Chōsen) that Japan recognized as having become the sovereign dominion of the Republic of Korea, when their two countries normalized (formally established) their relationship as mutually recognizing states in 1965.
14. The "Korea" (Chōsen) that remains part of the undigested past in the eyes, at least, of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with which Japan has yet to normalize a relationship.
15. The united "Korea" that not a few people would like to see result from a peaceful merger of ROK and DPRK, both simultaneously admitted to the United Nations in 1991, but still militarily posturing on their sides of the 38th parallel.

Top  

Japan

"Japan" I mean the sovereign part of the Empire of Japan until 1945. This "Japan" included Taiwan (Formosa) from 1895, Karafuto (southern part of Sakhalin) from 1905, and Chosen (Korea) from 1910. When occupied by the Allied Powers in 1945 after World War II, "Japan" was formally redefined without Formosa, Korea, Karafuto, Okinawa, and a few islands that had been part of the sovereign empire. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, effective from 1952, Japan formally abandoned its sovereignty over Taiwan and Korea, among other occupied territories, while reserving residual sovereignty over Okinawa. From this point in time, all people who had been affiliated with the abandoned territories, whether they were then inside or outside Japan, lost their Japanese nationality.

Top  

Koreans

When clear you are talking about “Koreans in Japan” then write just “Koreans”. You need to write “Koreans in Japan” only when necessary to differentiate such Koreans from Koreans elsewhere, such as “Korea” (meaning anywhere on the peninsula), or “southern Korea” or “northern Korea” (meaning parts of Korea in the south or north) , “ROK” or “DPRK” meaning these entities after 1948.

Between 1945 and 1952, "Koreans in Japan" were Japanese nationals, but were formally treated as "liberated" peoples by GHQ/SCAP, which excluded them from its definition of "Japanese" for border control, alien registration, and certain other Occupation purposes. Accordingly, Japanese government ordinances and other measures based on SCAP directives regarding the status of "Koreans" from 1945 to 1952 were similarly dualistic in their treatment of Koreans -- who were "aliens" under some provisions, and "Japanese nationals" under others.

From 1952, however, Koreans in Japan became unequivocally aliens. Their formal state affiliation (nationality) remained uncertain, though, for Japan did recognize ROK as the successor of "Korea" until 1965. Note that, in the Japanese versions of both the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and in the 1965 normalization treaty with ROK, "Korea" is "Chosen" -- and, as a historical entity, it remains "Chosen" in present-day court decisions concerning legacy status issues, such as in cases when a Korean claims to be Japanese.

By 1965, most "Koreans" in Japan had affiliated themselves with ROK, and their alien registration reflected their ROK status. The status of non-ROK Koreans in Japan, however, remained -- and remains today -- in limbo. Non-ROK Koreans whose status in Japan goes back to the Occupation period have remained affiliated with "Chosen" on their alien registration. While some (at times many) of these Koreans have been supportive of DRPK, because Japan has not recognized it as a state, or otherwise established such relations with DPRK that would allow it to attribute its nationality to Koreans in Japan who wish to be counted among its people, "Chosenjin" as such have been de facto stateless aliens.

Chosenjin in Japan today are not de jure stateless, because they have a territorial affiliation -- namely, they are affiliates of "Chosen" who have yet to migrate to a nationality of a recognized state, such as ROK, or another state that Japan recognize. Categorically, such Koreans have usually been lumped together with "Kankokujin" or "ROK Koreans" in alien registration and border control statistics. In addition to these Chosen-affiliated Koreans, there are, in fact, a very small number of non-ROK Koreans in Japan who have been admitted to Japan from DPRK, as DPRK affiliates. They, too, are generally lumped together with ROK nationals in government statistics, though reports include specific data on DPRK entrants by visa status, and explain such data in terms of Japan’s volatile relations with DPRK.

Top  

Japanese

Top  

Aliens

Top  

Zainichi Koreans

The term "zainichi Koreans" is widely used today in English literature to represent terms like "zainichi Kankokujin" or "zanichi Chosenjin" or "zainichi Kankoku/Chosenjin" and the like -- which may or may not refer to "Koreans in Japan" as a formal category. In fact, "zainichi Koreans" -- or, more recently, just "zainichi" -- is used with various meanings, often implying common "ethnicity" in the sense defined by some social scientists as a quality that bonds a "group" of people which considers "itself" culturally different from another "group". The term "ethnic Koreans" -- with such implications of "group" identity -- has recently come to be used in English journalism and academia related to Koreans in Japan -- as "translationese" for "zainichi" Koreans regarded as an ethnic entity.

While at times I will speak of ethnicity, and refer to so-called "zainichi Koreans" in various contexts within present-day discourse, I will eschew its use as a historically and formally neutral term, for several reasons. First, as a Sino-Japanese expression, "zainichi" means most objectively only "being in Japan" or "in Japan" -- usually with implications of residence as opposed to sojourning. It is most widely used with aliens -- hence "zainichi gaikokujin" or "foreigners in Japan" and the like -- whereas the formal term for "resident alien" is "zairyu gaikokujin". However, some people refer to "zainichi Nihonjin" (Japanese in Japan) as a counterpart to "kaigai Nihonjin" (overseas Japanese) or "zaigai Nihonjin" (Japanese outside [Japan]) -- or, more formally in Ministry of Foreign affairs statistics, as "kaigai zairyu hojin" (countrymen residing overseas).

As an informal classification in reference to Koreans in Japan, the meaning of "zainichi Koreans" (which is rendered various ways in Japanese) -- or just "zainichi" as has become more fashionable today -- varies from specific reference only to (1) those "Koreans" whose formal status of residence as aliens is tied to the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- or more broadly to (2) all aliens who are "Koreans" by one or another formal status of residence -- and increasing, though more radically, to (3) anyone who is construed to have one drop of "Korean" blood in their veins regardless of their nationality. Some uses of "zainichi" in relation to "Koreans in Japan" began to appear during the Occupation. However, the various nuances that are today associated with "zainichi Koreans" developed mostly over the half century since 1952, when Koreans in Japan lost their Japanese nationality and began to be fully subjected to alien status laws and changes in Japan’s relations with the two Korean states. In other words, as an informal classification, "zainichi Koreans" has to be seen as a phenomenon -- today mostly "racioethnic" or "ethnonational" -- that has evolved parallel to the more formal and general understanding of "Koreans in Japan" as a matter of law and formal policy.

Top  

"Zainichi Koreans" as treaty status: Korean SPRs

Top  

"Zainichi Koreans" as peninsula status: Chosen, ROK, and DPRK Koreans

Top  

"Zainichi Koreans" as ethnicity: Racioethnic identity

Top  

Entities and affiliations as variables

The following table shows the development of "Korea" and "Japan" in relation to one another, from the last quarter of the late 19th century to the present, and the statuses of their populations during this period.

         Total     Japan (  %  )     Korea   Other  

1930   419,009    34,154 ( 8.15)   384,855
1950   464,277   231,906 (49.95)   232,371
1959   607,533   390,098 (64.21)   215,160   2,275
1964   578,572   395,907 (68.43)   180,842   1,823
1969   603,712   437,216 (72.42)   165,228   1,268
1974   638,806   483,185 (75.64)   154,054   1,567

                      Total   Japan (  %  )    Korea  Other Unknown

Before Occupation  282,862  134,423 (21.04)  147,516    193     730   
During Occupation   92,579   88,964 (13.93)    3,380     79     156   
 After Occupation  259,689  259,287 (40.59)    2,967    133     269   
          Unknown      709      511 ( 0.08)      191      3       4     

            Total  638,806  483,185 (75.64)  154,054    408   1,159 

                  Number             Percent
         Total    Kankoku   Chosen   Kankoku  Chosen

1965   580,072    231,212  348,860      39.9    60.1 
1970   608,489    314,407  294,082      51.7    48.3 

Top  

Chosen legacies

Forthcoming.

Top  

Wagner on Koreans in Japan

Edward W. Wagner, in his 1951 study of The Korean Minority in Japan, 1904-1950 (New York: International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations), concluded his introduction with the following observation of and expression of hope (page 3, underscoring mine).

This sounds like a wonderful statement until it is closely examined in the light of contemporary conditions that should have been apparent to Wagner. The importance of his statement, nearly six decades later, is that many people who are writing today about "the Korean minority" or "Koreans in Japan" -- or "Zainichi" or whatever -- are making the same mistakes.

"individual Koreans"

By "Koreans" Wagner would seem to mean "Chosenese" -- or people affiliated with family registers associated with the Japanese territory of Chosen, then no longer under Japan's control or jurisdiction. It had, in fact, been divided into two occupied territories, which gave birth to two Korean states -- the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north.

Both Koreas, which claimed the same territory and affiliated people, were then at war.

By "Koreans" Wagner could only have meant "Chosenese"

"entry into Japanese citizenship status"

It is not clear what Wager means by "citizenship" as there was then, and there is today, no citizenship in Japanese law. Presumably he is speaking as an American, with reference to "citizenship" in the United States, which in international law is merely "nationality". The United States, in fact, has a "nationality" law, not a "citizenship" law.

Chosenese (Koreans), under Japanese law, were Japanese nationals, although under ordinances that reflected polices of Allied Powers under the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), Koreans, Taiwanese, and some other Japanese were provisionally being treated as aliens for border control and registration purposes.

In other words, Koreans could not have gained Japanese nationality. They could only have lost the Japanese nationality they already had.

In order to remain Japanese nationals upon the ceding of Chosen (Korea) away from Japan in a treaty, Chosenese (Koreans) in Japan would have had to migrate from their Chosen (Korean) registers to a municipal register in a Japanese prefecture. Migration to a prefectural municipal register would have made them subject to the Family Register Law, which would have qualified them to vote in municipal, prefectural, and national elections. However, such migration would also have obliged them to submit to the provisions of Japanese family law regarding statuses and names in family registers, and status migrations (such as through marriage or adoption) between registers.

"electing Japanese or Korean citizenship"

There was no "Korean citizenship". There were two Korean states, and neither provided for "citizenship".

Wagner appears to be viewing Japan, and the two Koreas, through the lense of popular American beliefs about "citizenship" and even the "individual".

At the time Wagner wrote his introduction, it was not envisioned that the peace treaty would resolve the status of Koreans or Taiwanese in Japan. Neither ROK nor DPRK were qualified to participate in the treaty. As one of the big four Allied Powers in the war against the Empire of Japan, the Republic of China (ROC) was technically qualified, but its status had been compromised by the founding in 1949 of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which displaced ROC in China's mainland provinces and drove the ROC government into exile on Taiwan -- which ROC had occupied as a representative of the Allied Powers.

Regarding Koreans in Japan, however, SCAP had already taken the position that Japan and the Korean states would have to negotiate their own settlements. Chosenese could not have migrated to the nationality of either ROK or DPRK before Japan had established normal relations with one, the other, or both of these.

At the time Wagner published his report, the two Koreas were and there was no end in sight. One is always free to hope -- but there was absolutely no reason then to think -- that the two Koreas could have have agreed to offering choices of nationality -- even if they had not been at war.

Personal and familial constraints on choice

In any event, it is far from clear how many Koreans in Japan would have welcomed a mandate of choice between keeping their Japanese nationality, or migrating to either ROK or DPRK nationality. Political loyalties divided individuals and families, and feelings were further complicated by the fact that political loyalties (ROK or DPRK) were commonly at odds with geographical ancestry (south or north).

Compounding the political and geographical contraints of nationality choice as a state affiliation, and arguably more important, were the constraints imposed by individual family circumstances. Wagner's "the Korean minority" was singular only with respect to its definitive civil status as a "liberated" classification of Japanese national -- and in the sense that most Koreans who had stayed in the prefectures had chosen to remain.

In all other respects "the Korean minority" was complex in that (1) most Koreans in the prefectures were totally settled there, (2) most apparently preferred uncertainties of what was familiar to them in the prefectures to the uncertainties of the unknowns on the peninsula, (3) about half were born in the prefectures, (4) some were not of Korean territorial ancestry, and (5) some were of mixed Korean and prefectural or other territorial ancestries.

"Koreans of dual nationality status"

Wagner appears to think that Koreans in Japan would somehow become dual nationals. There were, at the time, no "Koreans of dual nationality status" if by this Wagner meant people with both "Korean nationality" and "Japanese nationality".

It was also unrealistic (even inconceivable) that treaty settlements between Japan, and ROK and/or DPRK, would have allowed Chosenese to retain their Japanese nationality while acquiring either ROK or DPRK nationality. As it turned out, Japan outrighted reject a proposal by ROK that Japan regard Chosenese in Japan as its nationals while treating them the same as Japanese nationals -- which would not have constituted dual nationality, but what is called "national treatment".

"practical considerations"

It was precisely very powerful "practical considerations" of legal and political realities that prevented Japan from unilaterally offering Chosenese in Japan the option of remaining Japanese when the "forthcoming peace treaty" came into effect in 1952.

The main legal reality was that, since Japanese nationality had come territorial annexation, Japanese nationality would naturally be lost upon territorial separation.

The main political reality was the widespread view among Koreans -- and even among the Allied Powers, which before the war had generally recognized the annexation of Korea as Chosen in 1910 -- that Japan had forced the annexation, and usurped Korean nationalty by imposing Japanese nationality on Chosenese.

Between the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951 and its effectuation in 1952, Japan and ROC, which was not a party to the treaty, successfully negotiated their own agreement regarding Taiwan in a treaty which the two states signed on the same day the San Francisco treaty came into effect. The territorial transfer of Taiwan to Japan in 1895 had also been recognized by the Allied Powers or their predecessor states.

Similar negotiations during this period between Japan and ROK had disrailed, largely because of ROK's unreasonable demands, including the demand -- while at war with DPRK -- that Japan consider all Chosenese in Japan as nationals of ROK, in recognition of ROK's claim, backed by the United Nations, and recognized by the United States, as the only legal government on the peninsula.

It was under these circumstances that, a week before the San Francisco treaty would come into effect, the Japanese government issued a notification that, upon the treaty's effectuation, persons affiliated with the non-prefectural territories that Japan would lose because of the treaty -- i.e., Chosenese and Taiwanese, as affiliates of Chosen and Taiwan -- would lose their Japanese nationality.

It was also "practical considerations" that had caused the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to speak of the "welfare" of "liberated people" and "the rights of any person of any nationality in regard to retention, relinquishment or choice of citizenship" (SCAP statement, 20 November 1946) -- while SCAP itself was operating under orders from Washington, D.C. which excluded "Koreans and Chinese Formosans" from "Japanese" (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 3 November 1945) -- and while Japan was operating under similar directives from SCAP (SCAPIN-224, 1 November 1945; SCAPIN-677, 29 January 1946; SCAPIN-746, 17 February 1946.

In my humble opinion, the most humanitarian gesture on Japan's part -- having yet to conclude a treaty with either Korean state, notwithstanding the fact that it had agreed with ROC that ROC's nationality laws would govern the nationality of Taiwanese including those in Japan -- would have been to treat Chosense as the Japanese nationals they were, until which time proper treaties could be made with one or the other or both Koreas -- at which time choices could have offerred. The most rational legal and even diplomatic choice, however, was to denationalize Chosenese in recognition of the fact that Japan took seriously its loss of sovereignty over Chosen as a territory, and therefore could no longer presume to have the authority to regard Chosen affiliates as its nationals.

February 1951

Wagner's preface is dated "Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 1951". The Korean War was raging -- with the US and several other countries, including the Republic of China (ROC), supporting ROK under the flag of the United Nations, and the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (PRC) backing DPRK.

There was zero hope that the United States and the Soviet Union, the states primarily responsible for the division of Korea (Chosen) in the first place, would be able to put aside their ideological differences to pressure the two Koreas to end their feud and come to terms in order to faciliate an Allied initiative in the peace treaty with Japan regarding the status of Korea (Chosen) and its affiliates on the peninsula and elsewhere. It was also clear by that time that ROC, though one of the major Allied Powers in the war against Japan, would not be able to join the peace treaty, hence the need to negotiate a separate treaty with Japan after the provisions of Allied treaty became clear.

"Korean problem"

The "Korean problem" was indeed, as Wagner remarks, a minor one in the greater sweep of events then embroiling the world and especially East Asia. Edwin O. Reischauer, in his foreword to Wagner's 1951 report, essentially agreed with this assessment, though he saw Koreans in Japan as a source of "annoying complications" -- and "irritation and embarrassment" -- to Americans in both Japan and Korea (see next section).

"American professed aims"

What exactly were "American professed aims" in Asia? By what stretch of the imagination could the United States have been responsible for the welfare of a minority in a country it continued to racialize in its own immigration and naturalization policy? Why should the United States be expected to perform in Japan the sort of miracles it had yet to perform among its own "unassimilable" minorities -- as Reischauer, in his foreword to Wagner's report, calls Koreans in Japan (see next section). Especially if, as Wagner later observed, "as a result of increasing depredations, real and alleged, committed by the Koreans, the early sympathetic attitude of the Occupation toward the Koreans was changed to one of impatience and hostility" (page 41)?

By 1951, the United States was seriously bogged down in a civil war it had helped set up by agreeing to divide the occupation of the Korean peninsula -- then practically invited by recognizing only ROK and withdrawing most of its forces from the country. The US was also engaged in keeping ROC and PRC from continuing their civil war across the Taiwan Straits, helping France in its efforts to resume its colonial control over Vietnam.

The US was anxious to end the Allied Occupation of Japan, which had become an essentially American project and burden. The US also, because of the stance it was making against communism in Pacific Asia, wanted to conclude with Japan a military alliance that would secure the future of American military bases in the country.

Negotiations led by the United States between the Allied Powers and Japan regarding a peace treaty, and negotiations between the US and Japan concerning a military alliance, had already begun in earnest. Both would, in fact, be signed the same day later that year, on 8 September 1951, in San Francisco.

The last thing the United States would have wanted to do -- at the time Wagner was writing his report on Koreans in Japan -- was to complicate its own interests by meddling in Japan's affairs on the behalf of Koreans in Japan -- about which, if we take Reischauer's reasons for promoting Wagner's report at face value (see below), the US was not in a position to really understand -- out of sheer "inadequacy of . . . knowledge . . . about Asia" to say nothing about the interests of Koreans in Japan.

It is clear from developments on the peninsula that the leader's of the two Koreans unable to agree on the best interests of Koreans on the peninsula. And it is clear from Wagner's report that there was little capacity for agreement in Japan, among Chosenese, regarding their best interests -- individual or collective.

Top  

Reischauer on Koreans in Japan

Edwin O. Reischauer, in his short foreword to Wagner's report, refers to "Korean minorities" -- by which he means that there is more than one "Korean minority" in Northeast Asia.

This becomes apparent in the following two remarks about the "Korean problem" in Japan (page i, [braketed numbers] and underscoring mine).

At the start of his foreword, dated "Harvard University, May 3, 1951", Reischauer had stated that "We [Americans] have not been fully prepared for the grave responsibilities which have been forced upon us in Asia" (page i). He proceeds to promote Wagner's report as a contribution to gaining more knowledge about the Korean minoirity in Japan -- which he, Reischauer, concludes is a "small but significant aspect of the great problem we face in Asia" (page i).

Top  

Third nationals

During the postwar Occupation, people affiliated with former non-prefectural subnations were called "daisankokujin" or "third-country nationals". These expressions, now considered somewhat discriminatory, reflect the distinction made by the Supreme Commander Allied Powers (SCAP) between people in Japan whose nationality was linked with neither an Allied or friendly state (first nation) nor a former enemy state (second nation), but with a territory Japan had lost under the terms of surrender.

In principle, "third nationals" referred to people affiliated with Chōsen (Korea) and Taiwan (Formosa), which had been integral parts of Japan's sovereign territory. The term may sometimes also have embraced people affiliated with other territories that had been under Japan's legal control, such as the Pacific islands, which had been mandated to Japan after World War I, and even to nationals of Manchoukuo, though formally it was an independent country. Because Karafuto had been prefecturalized, and was treated differently in postwar settlements, mostly "third nationals" referred to people affiliated with the former subnations of Chōsen and Taiwan.

Japan did not have the authority to unilaterally determine the nationality status of third nationals. The nationality status of those in Chōsen and Taiwan was not an issue in the eyes of the governments that were established in Chōsen, or the Republic of China, which received Taiwan. They naturally viewed everyone in their own population registers, including those residing outside Chōsen and Taiwan, as being their nationals.

The status of third nationals in Japan was an issue because, since they were in Japan, they were legally under Japanese law. And Japanese law would continue to reflect both the treaties that had made Taiwan and Chōsen parts of Japan, and the laws based on those treaties, until which time new treaties were concluded and new laws based on the new treaties were effected.

In the meantime, there were several kinds of third nationals in Japan during the postwar years. Most had been in the prefectures at the end of the war and continued to reside there. Some had been elsewhere when the war ended, but had been domiciled in the prefectures so returned there with other repatriates. Some, though, had migrated to the prefectures from Chōsen and Taiwan, or from other parts of the far flung former empire, during the confusion of the postwar years, when it was relatively easy to slip in and out of ports of entry, illegally if not legally.

Top  

Chosenese ghosts

Forthcoming.

Status of subnationals today

Japan eventually took the position, not unilaterally but with the explicit or tacit approval of ROC and ROK, that former subjects of Taiwan and Korea in Japan would no longer be Japanese. The confirmation of their nationality would be at the mercy of ROC and ROK nationality laws and policies. Those not in ROC or ROK would have to confirm their nationality by registering at an ROC or ROK mission. Otherwise they would be essentially stateless.

Mindan, an organization of Koreans in Japan founded in 1946, facilitated the acquisition of ROK nationality by Koreans in Japan who wanted to be ROK nationals after ROK was founded in 1948. "Mindan" comes from "Zai Nihon Dai-kan-min-koku-min dan" -- which means "Association of Republic of Korea nationals in Japan" though the official name is reduced to "Korean Residents Union of Japan".

Former "Chosenjin" subnationals who registered with Mindan and were recognized as ROK nationals became "Kankokujin" in Japanese. Those who did not remained "Chosenjin" as far as their alien registration status was concerned. And because "Chosenjin" are unable to obtain a passport (or a passport Japan would recognize), they continue to be virtually stateless.

Special Permanent Residence status

Japan has also taken the position, again with the understanding of ROC and ROK over the decades, that former Japanese of Taiwanese and Korean subnationality, who have been residing in the prefectures since the war ended, and their Japan-born and Japan-raised non-Japanese descendants, should receive preferential treatment in matters of immigration and alien registration. Former subnationals not in Japan at the end of war and their non-Japanese descendents have been treated like other aliens.

Today prefential treatment begins with a right of abode called Special Permanent Residence. Some elements of citizenship also come with SPR status.

SPR status is not limited to qualified Taiwanese and Koreans (including both "Kankokujin" and "Chosenjin"), but is available to any alien Japan recognizes as a subject of a World War II peace treaty settlement. Though predominately nationals of Korea (Kankoku/Chosen) or China (Chugoku), SPR status holders include nationals of about fifty countries, representing all continents, and some stateless people.

Top  

Diet committee hearings

The series of treaties concluded by Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965 cover all manner of subjects. I am concerned here only with the status of Chosenese in Japan as settled by the general normalization treaty and the specific treaty on status.

The status of Chosenese was discussed and debated in the Judicial Affairs Committee (法務委員会 Homu Iinkai) of both the House of Representatives (衆議院 Shugiin) and the House of Councillors (参議院 Sangiin) of the Nationality Diet of Japan (Kokkai). The minutes of the meetings of such committees are reported in the daily Proceedings of the National Diet (国会会議録 Kokkai Kaigiroku).

Diet proceedings

Full texts of the proceedings for the Imperial Diet (帝国議会 Teikoku Gikai) are available in image files for from December 1938 (74th session) to June 1945 (87th session), and in text and image files for from September 1945 (88th session) to March 1947 (92nd session), at 帝国議会会議録検索システム (Teikoku Gikai Kaigiroku kensaku system) or "Imperial Diet Proceedings search system" database managed by the National Diet Library (国立国会図書館 Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan).

Full texts of the proceedings for the National Diet (国会 Kokkai) are available in text and image files for from May 1947 (1st session) to the present at 国会会議録検索システム (Kokkai Kaigiroku kensaku system) or "National Diet Proceedings search system" database, also managed by the National Diet Library.

Top  

1963 Hiraga and Nakagaki testimony

After the the coup d'etat of Park Chung-hee in the Republic of Korea in 1961, the ROK government, under Park's presidency, adopted a more realistic stance regarding the conditions it would expect Japan to meet upon agreeing to establish normal relations between the two countries. By 1965, they were signing both a normalization treaty and an agreement concerning the status of ROK nationals in Japan.

A number of Japanese government hearings were held during the period that the provisions of the treaty and agreement were being finalized. One of the more revealing, in terms of how the Japanese government viewed the status of Chosenese in Japan -- meaning persons who were legally affiliated with family registers in the former Japanese territory of Chosen -- was the 3rd hearing of the Judicial Affairs Committee of the House of Councillors, held during the 43rd Session of the National Diet, on the afternoon of Tuesday, 5 February 1963.

The principle representatives of the Ministry of Justice were Nakagaki Kunio (中垣國男 1911-1987) and Hiraga Kenta (平賀健太 1912-2004). Nakagaki, as the Minister of Justice, was the political leader of the ministry. Hiraga, though, was the ministry's resident expert on nationality law.

Nakagaki, an LDP-affiliated member of the House of Representatives representative politician, was then the Minister of Justice, in the Cabinet of Ikeda Hayato from July 1962 to July 1963. In the hearings, Nakagaki makes the clearest statement I have seen regarding Japan's understanding of the legal status of Chosenese in Japan -- meaning people who were affiliates of family registers associated with the former Japanese territory of Chosen.

Hiraga Kenta (1912-2004), a retired judge at the time of his death, had been a career Ministry of Justic legalist and prosecution counsel. At the time of the hearings, he appears to have been Director-General of the Civil Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Justice (circa 1960-1966). Shortly after the promulgation of the postwar Nationality Law in 1950, Hiraga wrote what remained, for nearly a quarter of century, the bible on nationality law in Japan. See Hiraga 1950 for more details about his two-volume book and life.

The structural translations of selected parts of Hiraga's and Nakagaki's testimonies, and the gossary of keywords that appear in the hearings, are mine.

General terms

人          person(s)
方          person(s)
人民        people
公民        citizen
人間        human

国          country (informal)
国家        state (formal)
国民        national
国籍        nationality
国籍欄      nationality box
無国籍      stateless

Historical and legacy entities and affiliations

大日本帝国  Empire of Japan
日本        Japan
日本臣民    Subject of Japan
日本人      Japanese

大韓帝国    Empire of Korea
韓国        Korea
韓国人      Korean(s)

朝鮮        Chosen
朝鮮半島    Chosen peninsula
朝鮮籍      Chosen register (affiliation)
朝鮮人      Chosenese
南朝鮮      South Chosen (south part of Chosen)
南朝鮮人    South Chosenese
北朝鮮      North Chosen (north part of Chosen)
北朝鮮人    North Chosenese 

Present entities and affiliations

日本        Japan (informal)
日本国      Japan (formal)
日本人      Japanese (informal)
日本国民    National of Japan (formal)

大韓民国　　Republic of Korea (formal)
韓国        ROK (informal, as this entity)
韓国籍      ROK register (affiliation)
大韓民国国民  National of Republic of Korea (formal)
大韓国民    ROK national (informal)
韓国人      ROKorean (informal)
南朝鮮      South Korea (extremely informal)
南朝鮮国    South Korean (extremely informal)

朝鮮民主主義人民共和国
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (formal)
朝鮮        DPRK (informal, as this entity)
北朝鮮人民民主主義共和国 (informal) [error]
People's Democratic Republic of North Chosen [error]
北朝鮮      North Korea (extremely informal)
北朝鮮人    North Korean (extremely informal)

Aliens in Japan

在日外国人   aliens in Japan
在日朝鮮人   Chosenese (legacy status) in Japan
在日韓国人   ROKoreans (nationality status) in Japan
第三国人     third nationals
在日第三国人 third nationals in Japan

Top