Imperialism that does not end...
The colonization of Korea by Japan in 36 years gave a lot of pain to all Koreans, and the scars are still left everywhere. But Japan has never apologized properly to Korea for their colonial rule and still can not completely abandon their imperial ambitions. Despite the obvious historical fact that Dokdo is a territory of South Korea, Japan has obstinately claimed it as a Japanese territory. Due to the crafty maneuver, Dokdo is written as the French name, Liancourt Rocks, instead of its own name on many maps around the world including Google Maps.
Please watch the video linked below and read the document written by a Japanese professor. I believe that your understanding and support will help to solve this problem.
Sovereignty over Dokdo – Professor Hosaka Yuji
1. An Overview of Dokdo and Takeshima
1) Dokdo: Korea
Dokdo was perceived as vassal islets of the Usan state (of Ulleungdo) from the 6th century until the middle of the 15th century. It was through the repatriation policy starting from the 15th century that Dokdo became widely recognized as Usando. In 1882, King Gojong called Dokdo Usando (Gojong sillok.) With the migration policy to Ulleungdo, the people living in Ulleungdo began to call Dokdo Dolseom “rock island.” The name Dolseom became Dokseom through the Jeolla dialect rendering, eventually becoming Dokdo. The people who began to live in Ulleungdo from 1880 named the islets Dokdo.
In 1900, Daehan-jeguk (the Greater Korean Empire) issued edict 41, which listed Dokdo as Seokdo and a part of the Uldo County’s jurisdiction (Ulleungdo.) The name Seokdo is a rendering of the name Dolseom using Chinese characters. In 1904, Nikata, a Japanese warship, used the name Dokdo in its daily record. This is recognized as the moment the name Dokdo became established.
2) Takeshima: Japan
In Japan, from early 17th century to around 1880, Ulleungdo was called Takeshima and Dokdo was called Matsushima. However, a confusion of names within Japan caused a change of names—Ulleungdo became Matsushima from around 1880 to 1904, while Dokdo was called Riyankodo—derived from the name “Liancourt rocks” given by a French whaling ship.
In January 1905, the Japanese government named Dokdo Takeshima and placed it under the jurisdiction of the Shinema prefecture through a cabinet meeting.
2. Korea has historically possessed Dokdo
1) In the year 512, Silla conquered the Usan state.
The people of Ulleungdo recognized Dokdo, which is within the range of visibility, as a part of the Usan state. People of Korea proper also recognized Dokdo as an island near Ulleungdo.
2) Korean government publications testify that Dokdo is a Korean territory
In 1454, Sejong sillok jiriji records that “Usan and Mureung, the two islands (…) are not far away from each other and are visible to each other in a clear day. It was named Usan state during the Silla era.” It notes the continuing geographic relationship between Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Here, for the first time, the Usan state is defined as Usando (Dokdo) and Mureungdo (Ulleungdo.)
In 1696, Sukjong sillok records of the An Yongbok’s second visit to Japan, note that Matsushima is Korea’s Jasando (equal to Usando.) This shows that Matsushima (Dokdo) is Usando and therefore a Korean territory. Scholars of both Korea and Japan recognize that Jasando refers to Usando.
Both Dongguk munheon bigo (1770) and Mangi yoram (1808) record that “Ulleung and Usan are both parts of Usan state. Usan is what Japan calls Matsushima.” These records clearly note that Matsushima (Dokdo) is Korea’s Usando.
In 1882, the Gojong sillok (Veritable Records of King Gojong) states quoting the king that “Ulleungdo is made of mainland Ulleungdo, Songjukdo and Usando.” This reveals that King Gojong recognized today’s Dokdo as Usando.
In 1900, Daehan-jeguk, through the Daehan-jeguk edict 41, recorded, “[we] established Uldo County (…) with the entire Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo as its jurisdiction.” In the process of name change from Usando to Dokdo, renders the Dokdo’s original meaning in Dolseom in Chinese characters as Seokdo.
In 1906, Sim Heungtaek, the governor of Uldo County, left a record stating that Dokdo is part of his county. This record also shows that Dokdo is part of Uldo County and therefore a Korean territory.
3) Ancient Japanese documents also prove that Dokdo is Korean territory
In 2005, there was a discovery of a relevant document from 1696 in the Oki Islands. This document, Wonrok 9 pyeongjanyeom joseonju chakan hangwoneui gakseo, shows that An Yongbok, while speaking to an official of the Oki Islands, claimed that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of the Gwangwon province of Korea.
3. The Ulleungdo conflict in late 17th century ended with the Japanese Edo shogunate recognizing that both Ulleungdo and Dokdo are outside of Japanese territorial jurisdiction.
The Japanese government today argues that Japan actually governed Dokdo before Korea did by pointing to the fact that Japanese fishermen frequented both Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the 17th century. However, the Edo shogunate officially recognized that Dokdo and Ulleungdo were not part of Japan and issued an edict prohibiting fishermen of the Tottori domain from going to Ulleungdo.
As Japan perceived that Dokdo belonged to Ulleungdo, the edict prohibiting the Japanese fishermen to Ulleungdo included a prohibition against visiting Dokdo. Therefore, the Japanese government’s claim is groundless.
4. The process of including Dokdo as a part of the Shimane prefecture
1) Inclusion into the Shimane prefecture
On January 28, 1905, the Japanese government assigned Dokdo as a part of the Shinema prefecture by claiming Dokdo as an uninhabited island and using the logic of “acquire by prior occupation.” However, such a move in fact contradicts earlier Japanese government papers in 1870 and 1877.
① Inclusion of Dokdo in the Shinema prefecture violates the 1870 paper that designated Dokdo as a Korean territory. In 1870, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs recognized that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are parts of Korea (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Diplomatic Record Office document.)
② In 1877, The Japanese Daijō-kan, the supreme organ of government, issued an order to the Home Ministry emphasizing that “another island” (Matsushima; Dokdo) has no relationship with Japan. The Home Ministry delivered the order to both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Shinema prefecture (the National Archive of Japan document.) Looking at the five-page document, this “another island” is listed as Matsushima (Dokdo.) This order also includes a map as an appendix—a map of Takeshima. Looking at the map, it is clear that Takeshima and “another island” are Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
2) The Eulsa Treaty (the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905) and Dokdo
In March 1904, Korea and Japan signed the Japan-Korea Protocol of 1904. The third clause stated that Japan will “protect Korean territory.” The stealing of Dokdo in January 1905, however, goes directly against the clause. The Japanese government, therefore, secretly included Dokdo as a part of Japan.
Following the secret annexation of Dokdo, Japan deprived Korea of its diplomatic sovereignty through the Eulsa Treaty (the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905.) The aforementioned clause guaranteeing that Japan will protect Korea’s territorial sovereignty was removed in the Eulsa Treaty.
In 1906, the Uldo governor Sim Heungtaek reported that Dokdo, which belonged to Uldo County, was annexed to Japan. Declaring it “an unimaginable incident,” the Korean government ordered an investigation with order number three (The Dokdo Museum material.)
In 1907, King Gojong secretly dispatched representatives to the Hague Peace Convention of 1907, condemning Japan’s aggressive intention against Korea. Such actions by King Gojong reveal that Korea could not directly and openly protest Japan’s acts of aggression (including those against Dokdo.) Japan’s logic that Dokdo became its territory through Korea’s connivance is therefore groundless (Picture: King Gojong’s secret message.)
5. The San Francisco Peace Treaty and Dokdo
1) Omission of Dokdo in the San Francisco Peace Treaty
Clause (b) of the second article of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (the Treaty of Peace with Japan) listed territories to be taken away from Japan, and Dokdo was omitted in the treaty. Clause (a) of the second article reads as the following: “Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.”
Observing it, the Japanese government maintains that Dokdo remained Japanese territory. Looking at the process of writing the treaty, however, provides additional questions. The part on Korean territory was abridged through a compromise between American and British drafts. In the British draft, Dokdo is listed as a Korean territory. In other words, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand claimed Dokdo as a Korean territory.
However, the Japanese government insists that Dokdo remained Japanese territory, pointing to Dean Rusk’s letter to the Republic of Korea government. A relevant portion of the letter is as the following:
“According to our information never treated as part of Korea and, after about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch office of Shinema Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. It is understood that the Korean Government’s request that “Parangdo” be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.” (51.7)
2) The U.S. State Department secret documents that negate the Rusk letter
The U.S. State Department documents that negate the Rusk letter continue to be discovered.
a. Secret document sent by the U.S. Embassy in Japan to the U.S. Department of State “The rocks, which are fertile seal breeding grounds, were at one time part of the Kingdom of Korea. (…) Japan has, and with reason, assumed that its sovereignty still extends over these islands. For obvious reasons, the Koreans have disputed this assumption (October 3, 1952.)
b. Secret document of the U.S. Department of State in September 1954
“Dokdo did not become Japanese territory through Rusk. It can be considered controversial whether the Rusk documents were based on enough historical understanding. That is, if Korea can prove that Dokdo was a Korean territory before 1905, that establishes the legal basis for the claim that Dokdo is a Korean territory (…) When the Korean government requested cessation of aerial bombing practice at Dokdo, we (the United States) accepted the request. (September 1954)
In conclusion, the U.S. State Department discovered that Dokdo was a Korean territory before 1905, and with that, expressed its view that Dokdo is a Korean territory. As the U.S. government accepted the South Korean government’s request to cease bombing practices on Dokdo, the U.S. government in effect acknowledged Korean sovereignty over Dokdo.
6. The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea of 1965 and Dokdo
The Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, signed in 1965, does not list anything on the Dokdo question. Such absence was due to the Korean insistence (and acceptance of the Korean claim on the part of Japan) that there is no “Dokdo question.” For the next four years following the treaty, Japan did not protest against any Korean assertion that Dokdo was a Korean territory.
In a provisional document exchange in case dissention emerges between the two countries, South Korea and Japan merely agreed that conflict will be resolved through “diplomatic route” or adjustment. In other words, the current Japanese assertion to take the matter to the International Court of Justice was excluded as an option. At this moment, Japan in fact abandoned its claim over Dokdo. Dokdo was of little value to Japan at the time, as it only included twelve nautical miles of territorial waters.
In conclusion, the current Japanese assertion over the sovereignty of Dokdo is largely due to the Japanese desire to seize the “the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone” of territorial waters, based on the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (in 1982,) around Dokdo. It is indeed a thief-like action and a part of Japan’s drive to become a great naval power.
<cited from http://peace.prkorea.com/lesson/column_v.jsp?r_url=&sch_nm=&board_cd=COL&sch_cd=title&sch_na_coun=&return_url=peace.prkorea.com%2Flesson%2Fcolumn_v.jsp&pageno=1&sno=1415>
