Dokdo-Takeshima Islands

“Territorial dispute over the small islands called Liancourt Rocks by U.S., reference to the French whaling ship that almost ran aground on the islands in 1849”

(Heo & Roehrig, 2014), which is called “Takeshima” in Japanese and “Dokdo” in South Korea has constantly been a major deterrent in the bilateral relations of South Korea and Japan. The Liancourt Rocks are two rocky crags and 36 other volcanic rocks located 211 km from Honshu and 216 km from the Korean peninsula (Pollmann, 2015a), at the body of water between Japan and Korea, known by South Koreans as

“Donghae” or “East Sea” and the “Sea of Japan” by Japan (Card, 2006). The islets are considered by both countries to be part of their own respective territories (McDevitt &

Lea, 2013). The historical aspect of the controversy is rooted in the sovereignty question.

There are several claims made by Japan over the sovereignty of the island. Japan asserts that it established control over the islands in 1905 based on the principle of terra nullius -claiming that it was previously an unoccupied territory (Heo & Roehrig, 2014).

Most importantly, Japan argue that it acquired the islands before the official annexation in 1910, which started with Russo-Japanese War in 1904 (Pollmann, 2015a). Japan thus argue that when the protectorate and annexation treaties were nullified following WWII, Japan maintained its possessions over the islands (Heo & Roehrig, 2014). Also, Japan state that after Japan was defeated by the United States and its allies in WWII, Article 2(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty declared that, “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet,” but “the Liancourt Rocks” were not specifically mentioned, thus Japan argues that the island has been officially acknowledged as the territories of Japan (S. Lee, 2002).

South Korea, on the other hand claims that it has possessed sovereignty over the island since 512 under the Silla Dynasty (Pollmann, 2015a). Koreans believe that the Japanese incorporation of the Liancourt Rocks into Shimane Prefecture, western region of the Honshu island, as part of Japan’s imperial expansion into Korea, thus the area represents the first victim of Japan’s invasion to Koreans (Pollmann, 2015a).

Korean authorities protested Japan’s actions by issuing Directive No. III on April 29, 1906, denouncing the acquisition (Heo & Roehrig, 2014).

This section focuses on arguing against the following two claims asserted by Japan: 1) Liancourt Rocks were unoccupied before 1905 and 2) the San Francisco Peace Treaty was silent regarding the status of Liancourt Rocks.

Korea’s claim over the island goes far back when the ancient Kingdom of Silla took control over it in 512 C.E. According to Korean scholars, the succeeding dynasties of Goryeo and Joseon continued to control the island until the turn of the twentieth century when Japan illegally incorporated it into its domain in 1905 (Choe, 2015).

Koreans cite numerous historical sources supporting the claim. According to the information released by the Dokdo Research Institute:

Sejong sillok jiriji referred to Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Mureungdo and Usando, respectively. Other documents include Goryeosa (高麗史, History of Goryeo, 1451), Sinjeung dongguk yeoji seungnam (新增東國輿地勝覽, A Revised Edition of the Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea, 1530), Dongguk munheon bigo (東國 文獻備考, Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea, 1770), Man-gi yoram (萬機 要 覽 , literally the Book of Ten Thousand Techniques of Governance but more commonly known as the Manual of State Affairs for the Monarch, 1808) and Jeungbo munheon bigo (增 補 文 獻 備 考 , Revised and Enlarged Edition of the Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea, 1908). These documents show that Usando was an old name for Dokdo, and was used to refer to Dokdo for at least several centuries until the early 20th century. Thus, it is evident that Dokdo was continuously a distinct part of Korean territory for an extended length of time (Dokdo Research Institute, 2008).

The evidence proving Korea’s sovereignty over the island is even found in range of Japanese historical sources. In the Meiji period, the Daljiokan (太政官, Grand Council of State), then Japan’s highest decision-making body, received a note of inquiry from the Ministry of Home Affairs, about the compilation of land registers for the Shimane Prefecture (Dokdo Research Institute, 2008).

[Fig 2-1] 1877 Statement Regarding Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo

Source: Dokdo Research Institute (2008). 1877 Statement Regarding Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo.

Reprinted from The Truth: Dokdo is Korean Territory In Dokdo Research Institute, Retrieved from www.dokdohistory.com

In response, the Grand Council of State issued a directive in year 1877 stating,

“Regarding Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island (Dokdo), Japan has nothing to do with them” [Fig. 2-1] (Dokdo Research Institute, 2008). More historical evidences from both countries clearly prove that the island before 1905 was under the ownership of Korea. Therefore, the island can neither be considered as terra nullius nor the territory of Japan.

The second assertion by Japan is that the San Francisco Treaty was silent in regards to the Liancourt Rocks, thus the island was officially recognized by the Allies as the territory of Japan. It is important to study series of drafts of the Treaty in order to understand South Korea’s argument against this claim. The final version of San Francisco Treaty underwent several revisions by numerous negotiation process between the Allied Powers and Japan. Seok-Woo Lee and Jon Van Dyke, scholars who have closely studied the successive drafts of the San Francisco Treaty relevant to the Dokdo issue, pointed out that “…the first five as well as the seventh draft returned the islets to Korea while the 6th, 8th, 9th and 14th drafts stipulated that Japanese territory included Dokdo. However, the 10th through 13th and 15th through 18th drafts, and, most importantly the final text, made no mention of Dokdo” (Selden, 2011). So what influenced changes in the Treaty? Lee and Dyke argue that the U.S. and its allies, facing time constraints with the U.S.-Korean War underway, chose to complete the Treaty quickly, leaving certain issues unresolved (Selden, 2011). The Allies left the issue unresolved because priority was put on Japan’s supporting role, rather than to grant Dokdo to Korea at a risk of losing it in the event of a North Korean victory, thus opening the possibility of attack on Tsushima and Japan (Selden, 2011). Many scholars argue that the decision on Dokdo has little to do with assessing the historical claims and everything to do with U.S. and allied geopolitical consideration (Selden, 2011). Also, during the time the Treaty was established, Japan also recognized that Dokdo was not Japanese territory.

[Map 2-2] The Map of Japan in San Francisco Peace Treaty

Source: Dokdo Research Institute (2008). The Map of Japan in San Francisco Peace Treaty. Reprinted from The Truth: Dokdo is Korean Territory, In Dokdo Research Institute, Retrieved from www.dokdohistory.com

In October 1951, the Japanese government submitted to the House of Representatives, the Map of Japanese Territory, drawn according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty (Dokdo Research Institute, 2008). In this map, Dokdo lies outside the line marking the boundary of Japanese territory, showing that the island is not party of Japan [Map. 2-2]. Another important factor that needs to be recognized is that Korea was never invited to the negotiation table.

“Despite the strong support of the US Ambassador in Korea, together with a request by Korea to be invited to participate in negotiations and the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Mr. Dulles pointed out that Korea would not be a signatory to the treaty, since only those nations in a state of war with Japan and which were signatories of the United Nations Declaration of January 1942 would sign the treaty” (S. Lee, 2002).

Also, Korea was excluded from the negotiation due to excessive claims by Korea for restitution and reparations, and North Korean demands for participation (S. Lee, 2002).

The settlement process could become complicated and slow, which was the last thing the Allied Powers wanted, especially U.S., in the midst of the Cold War.

The territorial issue over the island have been ongoing for more than six decades now. Koreans still fume about the humiliation of Japan’s annexation of Korea in 1910 and the brutal colonial rule that followed (Carpenter, 2015). The colonial history is still unforgettable, hurtful memories for the South Korean people. From the perspective of South Koreans, constant false claims held by Japan over the island is “simply another manifestation of that exploitative imperial land grab” (Carpenter, 2015). For South Korea, the issue over the island is another denial of historical truth and one of many false assertions Japan has been claiming since the end of colonization.