竹島問題の歴史

10.8.08

1949 A letter from W. Walton Butterworth

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part Five


Just five days after he saw the telegram by Sebald, W. Walton Butterworth (1903 - 1975), the Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs, sent the following letter to the Secretary of the State:


“With regard to the dispositon of islands formerly posessed by Japan in the direction of Korea it is suggested that Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) be specified in our proposed Article 3 as belonging to Japan. Japan’s claim to these islands is old and appears valid, and it is difficult to regard them as islands off the shore of Korea. Security considerations might render the provision of weather and radar station on these islands a matter of interest to the United States”.

This letter, dated November 19th 1949, had an effect on the next draft of the treaty and it became a firm belief for US Department of State until the conclusion of the treaty.

3 comments:

  1. Pacifist, I noticed you didn't highlight the part about "Security considerations" in this document.

    See? It's clear you want to hide the truth of the Japan Peace Treaty. Shame on you!

    Yes, the Americans knew if Japan were to be given Takeshima the U.S. military would be able to place miitary facilities on Liancourt Rocks which would be an asset to keep watch on communist Russia and China.

    San-Fran-Peace-Treaty-Truth

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    I didn't hide anything, as you proved that the "Security consideration" part can be readable by yourself.

    I know you "highlighted" the "Security consideration" part in your website to make poeple's eyes move away from the fact that USA admitted Takeshima to be Japanese territory.

    But to use it military or not is not important here because Japan was occupied by Allied Powers and USA was going to make USA bases in Japan (and in Korea too). It is natural for them to think that "uninhabited" island can be used for their purpose.

    The most important thing here is that one of the most important persons in the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs had a strong belief that Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) to be Japanese territory.

    At first, SCAP seemed to have a vague idea that Liancourt Rocks may have been Japanese territory (as seen in SCAPINs I introduced) while the Department of the State didn't. But now that the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs had the firm belief that Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory, it means that the Department of the State shared the same idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No Pacifist, you are the one misleading the people here as usual. Why? Because you are not providing vital information as to why the Americans made the decisions they did. You are trying to portray the Japan Peace Treaty as having more importance than it did.

    You are also trying to imply the San Francisco Peace Treaty has bearing over the soveriegnty of Liancourt Rocks, but we know better Pacifist.

    First the San Fran Peace Treaty makes NO mention of Liancourt Rocks at all.

    Second, the U.S. position was one of 48 countries who were participatory to the treaty. The Americans could not unilaterally order the disposition of former Japanese territories with the consent of ALL allied countries. This was reiterated by Dulles when the Americans dropped support for Japan in December of 1953. In other words the U.S. supported Japan but they knew they couldn't make decisions on their own.

    Dulles-Doc

    Third, Korea was not signatory to the Japan Peace Treaty. It has no legal affect on the Republic of Korea at all Pacifist.

    America's opinion was just one Pacifist. Other countries like Canada and Russia placed more importance on wartime agreements like Potsdam and Cairo Convention. America is not god Pacifist, even though USA conquered your country it doesn't mean you still have to bow to them.

    Canada's-View1
    Canada's-View2

    Japanese say wartime agreements had no bearing on the definition of Japan's territory. The above documents show that although America did not consider Potsdam and Cairo Convention were important, other nations disagreed with the U.S. That's why no decision was reached on Dokdo Takeshima Pacifist, obviously some of the other nations did not agree with U.S. policy.

    ReplyDelete