한일회담과 문화재 반환 교섭–일본 정부의 반환 문화재 목록 작성과정을 중심으로–

Abstract

This study started from the question of how the Korea–Japan talks for cultural property repatriation should be evaluated. Such evaluation will differ depending on the criteria applied, that is, whether the expert committee on cultural properties is assessed with a focus on the overall negotiation or on the negotiators. It is fair enough that the negotiations of fifty years ago had its limits from the current point of view and perceptions on cultural property of the international community. Korea and Japan at that time must have had an impact on the negotiation process. An analysis of the diplomatic documents exchanged between the two countries indicates that Korea did not view the negotiation for cultural assets as a collateral element, but as part of the process to resolve the historical issues with Japan. Such a perception is shown as an item in the “Claims against Japan for Eight Items.” Korea at the beginning embarked on the negotiations quite poorly based upon the scope of plundered cultural treasures presented in the “Repatriation Request against Japan.” However, Korea demanded to hold a separate meeting of the expert committee on cultural properties and put pressure on Japan, which showed nothing but a passive attitude towards thenegotiation. Meanwhile, Japan approached with a completely imperialistic logic, as the country attempted to handle this issue from the perspective of territorial separation. Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs were the de facto negotiators, but Japan prepared a list of cultural objects for repatriation based upon the opinions from the Japanese Ministry of Education, the National Commission for the Protection of Cultural Properties, and experts. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs applied to Korea the international cases explored in the first Korea–Japan talks. That is, Japan claimed that it is not obligated to “return” the cultural properties and cannot hand over any privately– owned artifacts, because the negotiations were not for compensation between two countries engaged in a war. The arguments of the education ministry and the National Commission only reinforced what the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed and showed that the Ministry had no intention to be more proactive in the process to return the cultural properties. Korean experts brought about a change to Japan’s passive attitude. Although Japan attempted to prevent any extension of the list of artifacts for restitution from the beginning, Korea through the cultural expert committee submitted a long list of cultural assets displaced to Japan along with detailed descriptions of the plundered items and how they were taken out of the country. In the previous negotiations, Japan had remained silent and insisted that the whereabouts of the properties cannot be known. However, Japan could not continue to be passive after Korea provided such a detailed report and explanations. In this regard, it can be said that the meeting of the expert committee on cultural properties served as an opportunity to extend the list of cultural properties to be returned.