竹島問題の歴史

9.8.08

1947 - SCAPIN 1778

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part Three

SCAPIN 1778

This SCAPIN is about Liancourt Rocks for use by the Allied Powers as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force. It was issued on September 16th 1947.



GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS

APO 500

16 September 1947

AG 684(16 Sept 47)GC-TNG

(SCAPIN 1778)

MEMORANDUM FOR : JAPANESE GOVERNMENT

THROUGH: Central Liaison Office, Tokyo

SUBJECT : Liancourt Rocks Bombing Range



1. The islands of Liancourt Rocks (or Takes Shima), located 37°
15’ north, 131° 50’ east, are designated as a bombing range.


2. The inhabitants of Oki-Retto (Oki-Gunto) and the inhabitants of
all the ports on the west coast of Honshu north to the 38th parallel, north latitude will be notified prior to each actual use of this range. This information will be disseminated through Military Government units to local Japanese civil authorities.



FOR THE SUPREME COMMANDER :


R.M. LEVY,


Colonel, AGD,

Adjutant, General.


As the former article already showed, the letter by Kenneth T. Young, Jr., Director of the Office of Northern Asian Affairs, which was written in November 1952, they let the islanders of Oki islands and people of Western Honshu know the usage of the range before they actually used it. Why did they notify Japanese people of the usage if they thought the Rocks were not Japanese territory?

To follow is from the letter by Kenneth T. Young, Jr.:

A later SCAPIN, No.1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the
islets as a bombing range for theFar East Air Force and further provided
that use of the range would be
made only after notification through Japanese
civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu
.

12 comments:

  1. Scapin 1778 was rescinded by
    SCAPIN2160 at 6 July 1951.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCAPIN2160

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pacifist wrote “Why did they notify Japanese people of the usage if they thought the Rocks were not Japanese territory?”

    The reason SCAP was supposed to notify the Japanese people prior to each actual use of Dokdo as bombing range was not that SCAP thought Doko was Japanese territory. It was because that SCAP didn’t want the Japanese civilians to be hurt by the bombing even though they were trespassers to Korean territory.

    Why did they separate Dokdo from Japan to define Japan if they thought the Rocks were Japanese territory?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Though Japanese sovereignty was damaged by Japanese Instrument of Surrender, military occupation and SCAP, Japan had the sovereignty of Takeshima.
    Then SCAP notified to Japan.


    Letter from Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Kenneth T. Young, Jr., Director Office of Northeast Asian Affairs) To E. Allan Lightner American Embassy, Pusan Korea

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks

    The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sloww:Why did they separate Dokdo from Japan to define Japan if they thought the Rocks were Japanese territory?

    GHQ/SCAP answered about SCAPIN677 as follows at the meeting with Japan on February 30, 1946.
    The defenition of Japan of this order(SCAPIN677) is not related to a territorial issue. The issue will be determined at a Peace Conference. (本指令に依る日本の範囲の決定は何等領土問題とは関連を有せす之は他日講和会議にて決定さるへき問題なり)
    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/scapin_meeting/ww2_scapin677_meeting_2.jpg

    United States Army Forces in Korea
    Formerly belonging to Japan, a recent occupation directive which drew an arbitrary line demarcating Japanese and Korean fishing waters placed Tok-to within the Korean zone. Final disposition of the islands' jurisdiction awaits the peace treaty.
    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima08/iken-C.data/1947.8archives.pdf

    USA
    The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently.
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Confidential_Security_Information_about_Liancourt_Rocks

    All parties concerned SCAP said that SCAPIN is not territory regulation. Only Korea who hadn't any power and right about SCAPIN said that SCAP is territorial regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. opp,

    SCAP or SCAPIN didn’t damage Japanese unrightous sovereignty claim over Dokdo. SCAP did the right thing for justice by separating Dokdo from Japan.

    SCAPIN 677 was one of the ways implementingthe Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. Cairo Declaration stated "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.” Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration which carried out the terms of the Cairo Declaration. SCAP clearly classified Dokdo as Korean land Japan took by violence and greed in accordance with Cairo and Postdam Declaration.

    The Allied Powers, the signatory of SF Peace Treaty, faithfully followed SCAP’s order to separate Dokdo from Japan through the document stating "The Allied and Associated Powers agree that there shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea all right and titles to the Korean mainland territory and all offshore Korean ilsands, including ... Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima).” (LINK) US also accepted SCAP’s decision by including Dokdo in Korean territory Japan had to renounce in the eary 5 drafts of SFPT.

    The Maps of SCAPIN 677 and the Alllied Powers

    Why did they separate Dokdo from Japan if they thought the Rocks were Japanese territory?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sloww:Why did they separate Dokdo from Japan to define Japan if they thought the Rocks were Japanese territory?

    SCAPIN677 is based on the occupation subject. The range of Japan of SCAPIN677 was occupied by GHQ. However, other armies governed about ranges other than Japan of SCAPIN677. For example, not GHQ but the 22nd army division governed about Ulleungdo. SCAPIN677 is not related to the determination of a territory at all, though Korean want think so.

    Sloww:SCAPIN 677 was one of the ways implementingthe Cairo and Potsdam Declarations.
    Korean want think so. However, SCAPIN forbids such an interpretation.

    SCAPIN677
    6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.

    Sloww:US also accepted SCAP’s decision by including Dokdo in Korean territory Japan had to renounce in the eary 5 drafts of SFPT.
    The Allies did not agree with the draft. Japan who is a sovereign, of course didn’t agree, either. In the treaty with legal force, the Allies accepted the full sovereignty of Japan about Takeshima according to article 1(b).

    ReplyDelete
  8. opp wrote “GHQ/SCAP answered ... The definition of Japan of this order(SCAPIN677) is not related to a territorial issue.”

    If you show me any document issued by SCAP, not the Japanese document stating SCAPIN677 was not related to a territorial issue, I’ll believe it. Kaneganes wrote “GHQ/SCAP officers verbally explained Japanese government official that the directive( SCAPIN677) was only for administrative convenience ...” Nobody except pro-Takeshima people would trust verbal statement.

    Kenneth T. Young,Jr’s letter is often cited by the Japanese. This document proves US perceived SCAPIN 677 was related the territorial issue. Director Young wrote "The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 ...... did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently.", which means US viewed SCAPIN 677 was related to sovereignty over Dokdo at least at the time of being issued. SCAPIN 677 was definitely related to territorial issue.

    SF Treaty made no any determination about Dokdo. Instead, Article 19, (d) of the Treaty states:

    (d) Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities or authorized by Japanese law at that time, ......

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sloww:If you show me any document issued by SCAP, not the Japanese document stating SCAPIN677 was not related to a territorial issue, I’ll believe it.

    Even if you don't want to accept, international law accepts. International law accepts the minutes as the evidence. Even an oral promise is also effective. Study Eastern greenland case.

    Sloww:Director Young wrote "The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 ...... did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently."

    Oh, Korean local rule again and again.
    Japan suspended exercising of sovereignty temporarily by SCAPIN677. But, Japan recovered full sovereignty by SF treaty. You cannot understand the difference in exercising of sovereignty and sovereignty. For example, Japan is suspended to exercise her sovereignty of the U.S. military facilities in Japan. But Japan have the sovereignty of the U.S. military facilities in Japan.

    Think logicaly and study the international law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. SF Treaty made no any determination about Dokdo.

    I taught you the exact the interpretation of the SF treaty.

    Article 1
    (b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.


    US-UK meeting
    The Americans would prefer a wording which emphasized the full sovereignty of Japan such territory as we should leave her and, exclude by name from her sovereignty and only such territory and islands as might be necessary to avoid confusion.

    Takeshima didn't exclude by name from Japanese sovereignty.Then Japan recover her full sovereignty.

    SF treaty never comment about Honshu, Kyushu and Hokkaido. When your delusion interpretation is applied, Honshu ,Kyushu and Hokkaido are not Japanese territory too.

    Think logically.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. opp,

    opp,

    Are you going to start to lecture on the weird international law irrelevant to the argument? Then, be my guest. But don’t expect me to listen to it. I don’t waste my precious time for the nonsense lecture.

    You taught me? Don’t be ridiculous. Why don’t you teach your fellow Japanese your stupid lesson and see if they like it or not?

    ReplyDelete