Доклады Международного конгресса ИИСАА. Т. 1

III. Far East, South and South-East Asia / Дальний Восток, Южная и Юго-Восточная Азия 336 Proceedings of the International Congress on Historiography and Source Studies of Asia and Africa.Vol. I. 2020 social organizations were required to sign to gain rights of consultation with the Joint Commission. Signing this statement committed the Korean organization to “uphold the aims of the Moscow Decision on Korea as stated in Paragraph 1of this decision,” to “abide by the decisions of the Joint Commission in its fulfillment of Paragraph 2 of the Moscow Decision,” and to “cooperate with the Joint Commission in the working out by it with the participation of the Provisional Korean Democratic Government.” 1 Curiously omitted from this communiqué was a direct mention to “trusteeship,” suggesting that the problematic word had been negotiated out of the document. By the Soviet interpretation, however, it was included indirectly through explicit mention of Moscow Decision paragraphs that carried the controversial word. The American Delegation refused to accept this interpretation and bickered with the Soviet Delegation over it up through the meetings’September 1947 conclusion. In this regard the “success” that the delegations realized in agreeing on the communiqué’s wording was tenuous. The Joint Commission’s second major success appeared in the form of a questionnaire that the two delegations compiled and distributed to Korean political and social groups. The results from this endeavor revealed the broad political spectrum through which they would have had to sift had they reached agreement over the groups with which they would consult. The questionnaire required Koreans to offer opinion on a variety of issues, ranging from politically neutral items such as legal matters, public health, education, culture, and the economy, and more ideologically loaded items such as Korean views on collectivism, land reform, wealth distribution, and the lingering Japanese influence. The two delegations also categorized the Korean groups by political orientation. This data appeared in a September 30, 1947 report titled “Analysis of Replies to Questionnaire Submitted to the Joint Commission.” This report noted that 435 out of 453 political parties and social organizations had answered the questionnaire. Of these groups 38 were from the north and 397 from the south. In terms of ideological base, the groups spread as follows: Right-wing Moderates Left-wing Percentage of groups 51.4 18.7 29.9 Membership 22,809,800 14,944,000 27,809,800 2 Asmall number of groups were rejected as they did not qualify as a political party or social organization. Also, the membership figures appear suspicious given that the 1 For the text of Joint Communiqué No. 5 see Joint Press Release (Signed by bothArnold and Shtikov), Joint Communiqué No. 5 (April 17, 1946) // NARA. 2 Analysis of Replies to Questionnaire Submitted to the Joint Commission (September 30, 1947) // NARA. P. 1–2.