Korea and Japan have spiraled into their worst relations in decades over tensions surrounding a few rocky islets in the ocean between them. Koreans call the islands "Dokdo" and Japanese know them as "Takeshima." Politicians in both countries assure supporters that these barely inhabited spits of land will be defended as theirs at all costs, and the respective foreign ministries have announced multi-million dollar ad campaigns to further publicize their claims.
This territorial dispute has flared with regularity since the collapse of the Japanese empire in 1945; most recently in 2008 when Washington's Bureau of Geographic Names surprisingly altered the islands' legal status in such a manner that only President George W. Bush's intervention could return it to where it was: intentionally blank. During the most recent fracas, Washington has issued its more standard response that America wants our allies to work this out amongst themselves; last week at the APEC meeting in Vladivostok, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton further directed Seoul and Tokyo to "lower the temperature" (subtitles read: "Get your acts together; we have bigger problems").
North Korea's unknowns coupled with China's militarization would seem to demand greater American attention in Northeast Asia, yet the reality is that these rocks deserve our immediate attention. There are over 200 recognized territorial contests in the world; Korea and Japan's dispute is the only one that obligates United States military involvement on both sides to defend one country from the other in the awful event of hostilities, a predicament that returns us to Washington's insistence that the problem is not ours. A little honesty from Washington about America's historical involvement in the standoff would go a long way to detoxify its potential for violence.
The touchstone for today's disputes is the American-crafted Treaty of Peace with Japan, known as the San Francisco Treaty for the location of its signing on September 8, 1951. The treaty formally ended Japan's war against the Allies and the victors' occupation of the country. It also delineated Japan's new territorial limits, officially dismantling the once massive Empire of Great Japan. Strangely absent in the treaty, though, is mention of the islands now causing such a ruckus, a condition made all the clearer by inclusion of the Kurils, which Japan nonetheless continues to contest, too, even though their Yalta gift from Roosevelt to Stalin is long proven.
Almost as soon as General MacArthur's occupying forces moved into the region in September 1945 Japanese interests ranging from fishermen's cooperatives to nostalgic imperialists lobbied to hold onto whatever they could of Japan's vanished reach. The islands now in question appeared regularly in occupation memos and maps with voices arguing each side's claim; overall, American military maps located the islands within U.S. Korean command, while State Department officials quoted Japanese concerns back to Washington to placate local politicians working for them.
By the time the San Francisco Treaty came about a new war was on -- the Korean War -- and the islands by then had new value to American pilots for target practice, becoming vital to American pilots lightening their payloads while returning south from runs over North Korea. Naming Korea's sovereign control seemed without doubt -- the treaty lists Ulleungdo 47 nautical miles to the east as Korean (under its old French name, Dagelet) -- yet the final 1951 document would table ownership to accommodate another concern: what if northern forces grabbed the rock closest to Japan and the island fell into communist Korean hands?
Tabling sovereignty over these tiny rocks made sense to American planners at the time, yet the treaty's absence of named ownership -- and American determination to avoid the subject since -- has allowed a relatively manageable disagreement to become a truly volatile situation.
Japan maintains that Korea has "illegally occupied" the islands since 1952 when Koreans sent patrol units to guard a lighthouse there. Since 2004, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website has explained its rationale equally in Japanese, English and Korean, among other languages: the San Francisco Treaty does not specifically name the islands Korean, thus the Allies did not not name it Japan's. Koreans respond quizzically that such logic would grant Japan claim to all of Korea's 3,000 additional outer islands.
To some, this may be further example of outdated images of Asian diplomatic opera buffa. Matters could not be more different, which Japan's lengthy justification demonstrates. Tokyo claims that its right to sovereignty over the islands today -- prime fishing grounds for anyone who could get there long before Korea and Japan even had their contemporary names -- derive from a 1905 Japanese Cabinet decision that incorporated the islands into the nation's growing empire. Woefully missing is explanation that Japan was beginning to colonize all of Korea at the time. The islands disputed today are shards of that history's early moments; to make it into anything else simply denies Japan's takeover of Korea.
At the end of June this year, Seoul and Tokyo tabled a military intelligence sharing agreement that Washington desperately seeks less than an hour before it was to be signed; many American pundits looked confused and wondered openly why "they" can't get over "it"? The answer is straightforward: until Japan fully confronts the history of its empire and war in Asia without relying on white-washed phrases of "sorrow and regret," no politician in Korea or anywhere else in the region would be able to stay in office should he or she promote something so obviously evocative of past atrocities as a "joint military intelligence pact."
The United States did not colonize Korea in 1905, but Washington marched America right through the door of this history through involvement in the decolonization process. Honest dialogue about this known history would demonstrate that Washington's desired pivot toward Asia is for the peace and stability of the region and world. Seoul and Tokyo are our allied democracies in a region rife with competing claims to the future; the history wars about a bloody past have been on their streets for over a decade and have gained tremendous intensity through the territorial disputes. Both nations should stop playing with fire: brinksmanship only fuels reactionary response. Meanwhile, Tokyo discredits any claim to global leadership while it persists in imagining an empty past.
Also, all the mentioned records of Usan in documents suggest Usan = Chukdo. Usan is described with villages with residents, bamboo forests, rich food supplies, field to cultivate and fresh water. Whereas true islets of Takeshima consist of two rocks with no place for a single field or river.
And do not forget about the last Rusk documents which says "As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."
Plus, they are still in the middle of war with North, although in cessation, their information is very controlled. If you can have an access, try obtaining their school history text books, which had been published only by their government till just recently, and translating them, your jaw will be dropped from just reading the very beginning.
I know Korean has stayed at the islet(Dokdo) for a long time.
"Seoul and Tokyo tabled a military intelligence sharing agreement that Washington desperately seeks less than an hour before it was to be signed."
What actually happened: Seoul chickened out 20 minutes before. The Japanese were ready to sign.
The San Francisco Treaty specified the territory that Japan was to relinquish. It annexed Takeshima separately as terra nullius before it colonized/annexed Korea. That's why it still belonged them.
There is talk about Japanese lobbying to keep territory, but no mention of the even more strident Korean lobbying to seize territory, including Takeshima, during the SF treaty negotiations.
And the author's observations observations about Japan's view of its past history demonstrates conclusively that she doesn't understand Japan's view of its past history.
What we have here is a professor with an agenda rather than an interest in dispassionate historical research.
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2012082850818
Japan has not one single shred of evidence that the island belonged to them prior to 1905. To make matters worse for them, their 1905 claim is illegal under international law. In order to declare a territory terra nullius you must notify the territories neighboring nations and confirm that the island is indeed under no ones sovereign control. Japan didn't do that which is a violation of international law. Stealing someone else territory by declaring it terra nullius is another breach of international law.
The Japanese government is violating the San Francisco treaty as well as multiple international territorial laws by declaring the island still belongs to them.
The reason they put that bit about the taxes last is because it's the weakest link and they know it. You're unaware of the confusion with both sides over what islands people were really talking about. Hosaka's argument rests on his interpretation (not established fact) of which island was which. He knows they were using another name, but insists they meant Dokdo. This assertion is shaky at best. When he says they were paying taxes for the catch at Dokdo, he means they were paying taxes for the catch at some island he wants to think is Dokdo, but can't prove. If this were decisive, it would have been on the front page of every Korean newspaper instead of buried in one column.
Citing Ahn Yong-bok destroys credibility. He gave three different stories about what islands he saw and why he was there. He claimed people were living on Takeshima, which was impossible.
The entrance of the Dokdo Museum on Ulleongdo has a frieze depicting Usan to the east of Ulleongdo, based on some old Korean map, and the argument that Usan was actually Dokdo. There's another representation of the map on a stone in the garden. It follows the actual map faithfully, showing Usan to the west of Ulleongdo. The map still exists.
Do yourself a favor and study something more credible than Korean propaganda.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/treatment.html
Good progress! Next step is check the validity of Korean map claims. Keep on working, Alexis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H91QN6ho8jU
>Koreans respond quizzically that such logic would grant Japan claim to all of Korea's 3,000 additional outer islands.
lol This is exactly what South Korea is doing over Tsushima islands and Japan never think of.
SK politician "Taemado is our land!" SK nation "Mansei South Korea! Pack you, Japan!"
If the same kind of stuff happened in Japan...
J politician "Marado is our land!" J nation "You are shame of Japan. Go to Korea and never come back!"
And unlike Germany, the same branch from these Japanese militarists have pretty much stayed in power since the war which explains why Japan continues their so-called claims to lands seized during their imperial days. That being said, the US is correct to stay out of these disputes because any support for Japan on this issue could feasibly turn S. Korea or even an unified Korea towards China's sphere of influence.
2 Fishermen long Lived.Nakai youzaburou
3 Nothing on Korean Map.
See this video. "3" is explained.
Does there exist any old Korean map which depicted Takeshima/Dokdo?
youtube.com/watch?v=H91QN6ho8jU
Your text is long! Gather data in the main point!
The thing which you want to say most is
1 "America don't know."
2 "a 1905 Japanese Cabinet decision that incorporated the islands into the nation's growing empire.
It has overlapped with the time of Korean rule.
The description does not exist. "
You Probably, it only claims "having included during Korean occupation in Japan."
Was the opinion of Japan read?
1 There are No Marks Which Foreign Country Occupied.
2 Fishermen long Lived.Nakai youzaburou
3 Nothing on Korean Map.
See this animation. "3" is explained.
Does there exist any old Korean map which depicted Takeshima/Dokdo?
youtube.com/watch?v=H91QN6ho8jU