미국 국무부 재외공관문서(RG 84)와 한일회담 (The Understanding of United States on Korea-Japan Talk Based on Declassified documents of Diplomatic missions of the State Department)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 사학연구 / 115호 / 423 ~ 462페이지
· 저자명 : 박진희

초록

해방 후 한일회담 연구에서 한국과 일본 정부의 외교문서 이외 필수적으로 검토해야 하는 또 하나의 자료는 미국 정부 문서이다. 그동안의 한일관계 연구가 보여주었듯 한일관계는 양국관계 뿐 아니라 2차 세계대전 종전 이후 미국의 동북아시아정책 속에서 한국, 일본, 미국이라는 3국 관계 속에서 조망할 필요성이 있기 때문이다. 실제로 미국은 강력한 중재를 통해 1951년 한일예비회담을 개최하게 만들었고, 이로써 한일회담이 시작되었다. 또한 한국과 일본 정부는 한일회담 과정에서 끊임없이 미국의 지지를 요청했고, 미국은 사안에 따라 개입과 유보, 중재 등의 형태로 한일회담에 개입하였다.
미국이 한일회담 과정에서 한일 간 현안 문제에 대해 보여준 인식과 대응은 각각 달랐다. 일본의 역청구권과 한국의 평화선 선포에 대해서는 공식적으로 입장을 표명하였다. 미국은 일본의 역청구권 주장은 근거가 없다고 밝혔고, 한국의 평화선 선포는 공해상의 자유로운 항해를 보장하는 국제법을 위반한 것이라고 입장을 밝혔다. 반면 한일회담을 장기간 결렬상태로 몰아넣은 구보타 망언에 대해서는 제대로 된 논평조차 내놓지 않았다. 일본의 재일조선인 북송에 대해서는 한국의 강력한 반발에도 불구하고 인도주의라는 명분을 내세워 동의하였다. 미국이 한일관계에서 최우선으로 고려한 것은 동북아시아 반공진영 강화라는 전략의 관철과 이를 위한 한일관계의 개선이었다. 따라서 한일 간 식민지 지배의 불법성과 청산이라는 역사문제가 투영될 수밖에 없었던 한일회담의 의제들에 대해서는 충분히 성찰하지 않았고, 오히려 정치적으로 타협되기를 기대하였다.

영어초록

One of the most important documents in Korea-Japan Talk, the United States government document materials. This is because the relationship between Korea and Japan, there is a need to look at in the United States in Northeast Asia policy. Therefore, the United States talks about Korea and Japan have expressed interest.
Each show was different about the current issues in the Korea-Japan Talk is recognized and the corresponding United States. The United States has expressed the official position for the Property Claims issue and peace line issue. Whereas the United States was not based on the Japan’s Property Claims. Also pointed out that peace line was in violation of the international law.
Property Claims issue was directly related to the issue of how the past relationship between Korea and Japan should be viewed, perceived and evaluated. So it remained one of the most controversial topics for the duration of the negotiations between the two countries, and it served as a significant variable for the outcome of the talks. Korea sought for a new relationship with Japan to be established, a relationship based upon the Japan people's officially admitted regret and remorse regarding their deeds and actions committed in the past during the Japanese occupation period of Korea. But Japan perceived their past relationship with Korea and all their deeds to be justifiable ones, and they also thought that their influences upon Korea were not always negative but in fact most of the times positive. These differences in opinions, perceptions and positions led to fiery debates over the Property Claims issue, and also the incident of the so-called reckless remarks by Kubota. But the United States did not comment on the Kubota’s reckless remarksIssue of returning Korean residents inside Japan to North Korea was discussed and settled between Japan and the North Korean government, and such settlement became a major hurdle for the continuation of the Korea-Japan talks and not to mention the efforts to better the diplomatic relationship of those two countries. Japan had always tried to expel the Koreans inside Japan as soon as possible since their defeat in the war, and apparently the settlement was also part of those efforts. The Korean government strongly protested to Japan's expulsion of Korean people to North Korea, and the South Korean public held anti-Japanese demonstrations, trying to inform the rest of the world of Japan's actions. But in the end, Korea was not able to prevent Japan from continuing to expel Korean citizens to North Korea.
Washington sought to support the Japanese Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, who prioritized the U. S.-Japan Alliance and sought to revise the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. The way to support Kishi, who was then facing enormous resistance from those who argued against the revision of the treaty, was to remain silent about the repatriation—something most Japanese agreed on across the ideological spectrum. Although it was wrapped in humanitarian rhetoric, no one cared about their human rights. That is the truth of repatriationAfter all, the factor that substantively determined the nature and shape of the Korean government's Japanese policy turned out to be the United States of America. U.S. also served as a prominent factor in the Japanese government's devising of their own policies regarding Korean matters. In other words, the Korea-Japan relationship cannot be appropriately addressed by discussing only these two countries. The Korea-U. S. relationship, the Japan-U.S. relationship and the triangular relationship among Korea, Japan and U. S. should all be considered at the same time.

참고자료

· 없음