竹島問題の歴史

12.8.08

1951 September 9th; San Francisco Peace Treaty

History of San Francisco Peace Treaty: Part Thirteen

The Peace Treaty was signed in San Francisco on September 9th 1951.
The treaty included the following:

Chapter I - Peace (Article 1)
Chapter II - Territory (Articles 2-4)
Chapter III - Security (Articles 5-6)
Chapter IV - Political and Economic Clauses (Articles 7-13)
Chapter V - Claims and Property (Articles 14-21)
Chapter VI - Settlement of Disputes (Article 22)
Chapter VII - Final Clauses (Articles 23-27)

Here is the Chapter II (Territory):

CHAPTER II

TERRITORY

Article 2

(a) Japan recognizing the
independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea,
including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim
to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent
to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of
Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.

(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim
to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the
United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with
the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of
29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands),
Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and
jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including
their territorial waters.

Article 4

(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article, the disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2, and their claims, including debts, against the authorities presently administering such areas and the residents (including juridical persons) thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents, and of claims, including debts, of such authorities and residents against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between Japan and such authorities. The property of any of the Allied Powers or its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2 shall, insofar as this has not already been done, be returned by the administering authority in the condition in which it now exists. (The term nationals whenever used in the present Treaty includes juridical persons.)

(b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.

(c) Japanese owned submarine cables connection
Japan with territory removed from Japanese control pursuant to the present
Treaty shall be equally divided, Japan retaining the Japanese terminal and
adjoining half of the cable, and the detached territory the remainder of the
cable and connecting terminal facilities

.

The first article 2 (a) indicated that the islands Japan should renounce are Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet - it did not include Liancourt Rocks. Pro-Korean scholars used to say that the treaty didn't say about Liancourt Rocks so that it didn't mean the rocks are Japanese territory. But this was not true. The name of Liancourt Rocks was intentionally omitted - please compare with the former draft:

The Allied and Associated Powers agree
that there
shall be transferred in full sovereignty to the Republic of Korea
all rights and titles to the Korean Mainland territory and all offshore Korean
islands, including Quelpart(Saishu To), the Nan how
group (San To, or Komun Do) which forms Port
Hamilton
(Tonaikai), Dagelet Island(Utsuryo To,
or Matsu Shima), Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima),
and all other islands and islets to which Japan had acquired title lying outside
...

And the last draft of the treaty, which was made just before the treaty, included a footnote that is saying; "As regards the island of Dokdo… this normally uninhibited 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" from Rusk's comment. Apparently they intended to drop Liancourt Rocks from the list of the islands Japan should renounce, on the basis of Rusk's Letter. http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1951-august-rusks-letter.html

One of the US documents which were written in 1952 says "they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had ever before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article 2(a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks", and "It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington" - http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/1952-november-confidential-secirity.html

Dean Rusk himself wrote a letter on July 22nd 1953 and reconfirmed that Dokdo was never treated as part of Korea. http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1953-jul-22-us-doc-reconfirms-dean-rusk.html

Van Fleet wrote in 1954 that "the United States concluded that they
remained under Japanese sovereignty
and
the Island was not included among the
Islands that Japan released from its ownership
under
the Peace Treaty".
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/report-of-van-fleet-mission-to-far-east.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A pro-Korean website mentions:

."..but the varying positions taken during the deliberation process indicate that the decision was made either because not enough information had been provided regarding the historical events surrounding Japan's incorporation of Dokdo Takeshima or because the Allied Powers felt themselves incapable or inadequate adjudicators. To this day, America maintains a neutral stance on the Dokdo Takeshima dispute".

This information is untrue, as you can see in the various documents above.

20 comments:

  1. The SF treaty isn`t relevant and binding for Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. helpfish,
    Sorry. Sovereignty doesn't transfer without Japanese agreement. Because the conquest became unlawful after ww1 in international law.

    ReplyDelete
  3. helpfish,

    SFPT doesn't bind Korea as you say because Korea was not a signatory, Korea was a part of Japan during the war.

    It only decided the islands to be returned to Korea and it didn't include Liancourt Rocks.
    So Japan has a right to own Liancourt Rocks, if someone occupys it without warning, it is an invasion.

    It is important that USA recognised that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan.
    Also it is important that Rhee Syngman Line was condemed not only by Japan and USA but also by other countries including China.

    Korea doesn't live alone. She has to live in harmony with surrounding countries. I think Korea should admit the wrong-doing their first leader commited.

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. helpfish,

    Of course Korea is not a signatory of the SF Peace Treaty because the state of Korea, whatever it may have been called, DID NOT EXIST during the Second World War.

    But Korea is duly bound by the Treaty since it was a part of Japan during the war. Without the Treaty, the title over Korean Peninsula could not be officially transferred (and recognized).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even China didn`t sign the SF treaty. So it seems to have no effect in Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Helpfish is right.

    The San Francisco Peace Treaty has absolutely zero legal effect on the Republic of Korea.

    When the Americans were discussing the Japan Treaty they also agreed they treaty had no legal effect on Russia who also refused to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    It doesn't mean nothing if you don't sign it on the dotted line fellahs...

    Pacifist, let me be blunt.

    Who gives a crap if America supported Japan's claim to Dokdo 50 plus years ago? Just a month ago, the U.S. listed the islands under Korea's sovereignty. Thus they agree the islands are Korean land in 2008. That's what really matters....

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW. The treaty was signed AFTER world war 2. So it would have been clearly useful for the USA to let Korea sign the treaty so that there won`t be any further demands by Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. quote "I think Korea should admit the wrong-doing their first leader commited."

    first, the japanese right-wing extremists should stop acting like Nazi Germany. Afterwards if Japan calms down and apologizes HONESTLY then we will see.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    I once told you but you couldn't understand what I meant...

    It was the decision of BGN - the board of geographical names, not the American government. It is merely a problem of how they write on their maps, it has nothing to do with the sovereignty.

    And they only give it back to the same situation a week before. You may know it, it was a favor of President Bush to the President Lee, who's approval rating is dsperately going down.

    And USA declared that they are taking the neutral position concerning the issue as before. They didn't admit Korea's sovereingty over Liancourt Rocks.

    helpfish,
    You wrote;
    "first, the japanese right-wing extremists should stop acting like Nazi Germany. Afterwards if Japan calms down and apologizes HONESTLY then we will see".

    I think you the Korean right-wing extremists look more Nazis like than Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear helpfish,

    Please get familiar with the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea of 1965, especially its very first section:

    Japan and the Republic of Korea,

    Considering the historical background of relationship between their peoples and their mutual desire for good neighborliness and for the normalization of their relations on the basis of the principle of mutual respect for sovereignty;

    Recognizing the importance of their close cooperation in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations to the promotion of their mutual welfare and common interests and to the maintenance of international peace and security; and

    Recalling the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951 and the Resolution 195 (III) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 12, 1948;


    As you see, South Korea and Japan concluded this pact with their full understanding that the SF Peace Treaty was duly binding or, at the very least, highly relevant to both states.

    Also I suggest that you should not ignore the huge difference between China and Korea in the wartime. While China did exist as the Republic of China, Korea did not exist in this period in such a way that it is was internationally recognized.

    ReplyDelete
  12. cloud,

    It is completely irrelevant if Korea "existed" during wartime as the annexation was completely illegal.

    And what do you want to prove with your 1965 treaty? The 1965 treaty doesn`t make the SF treaty binding for SK either.


    pacifist,
    for koreans, the japanese still look like right wing nazi extremists and the scary thing is, the japanese don`t seem to care.

    ReplyDelete
  13. cloud,
    the SF treaty is also called the Treaty of Peace with Japan.

    So why should Korea care about that treaty? Even if Korea didn`t "exist" at that time, Korea exists now and existed in 1951 when the SF treaty was finalized and signed by 49 nations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. helpfish,
    The sovereignty cannot transfer without the agreement of the owner.
    In the case of Takeshima, the owner is Japan. A domestic law of South Korea and the United States is also the same. International Law is also the same.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Pacifist, read the post from the "pro-Korean site" one again.

    You are making a huge leap here in saying the views of the American military brass represented all 48 signatory nations of the Japan Peace Treaty. These are only American letters Pacifist.

    America did not show outright support for Japan these documents are confidential. Not even the Japanese themselves knew of American support. This is different to Japan's dispute with Russia.

    Next, America still does maintain neutrality on the issue of sovereignty of Dokdo. Just last month the Americans listed Liancourt Rocks under the administration of the Repbulic of Korea. So you are also wrong on that point.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve,

    No more sophistries Steve. All the signatories of the treaty approved the last draft which clearly mentioned Liancourt Rocks are Japanese teritory. That means all the signatories approved that Liancourt Rocks belong to Japan.
    It was not merely USA's opinion.

    Read all the documents I showed. One of the documents says that Liancourt Rocks are the same as Hobomais - Japanese islands illegaly occupied by Soviet Union. USA knew that they are Japanese territory but they wouldn't use military power in fear of nuclear wars.

    USA (and the world except ROK) knew Liancourt Rocks belong to Japan but USA wouldn't use military power, that's the same as Habomais case above.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Once again, the usa isn`t god (maybe for some japanese since after world war2)

    The incorporation in 1905 by japan was illegal. Before, there have been no japanese claims.

    If japan bases its claims only on the 1905 incorporation, there is no need for Korea to rely on the opinion of the USA, the international community or some letters from rusk (who is this guy?)

    ReplyDelete
  18. helpfish,

    The world admitted that the incorporation in 1905 was legal under the international law.

    People who oppose it are only Koreans. So Korean people has to prove that their insistency is right. To prove that you should show the evidence that Korea found the island first (at least, in earlier occasions) and has controlled it before 1905.

    But in reality there is no such evidence.

    It was Rhee Syngman who began to insist that Liancourt Rocks were Korean land, he robbed it violently because his insistency was denied by USA who studied the scientific evidences well.

    It was 崔南善 who advised Rhee Syngman to take Liancourt Rocks but 崔 himself wrote various geographic books that say Korean easter limit was Ullengdo. So 崔 knew that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea, therefore I think Rhee himself also may known that the rocks belong to Japan although he pretended not so.

    Even after USA repeatedly warned to Rhee that the rocks belonged to Japan and the Rhee Syngman Line was illegal, Rhee didn't give them back. It may show that it was a crime of conscience - he was an extraordinary anti-Japanist so he just wanted to take anything from Japan - he may have taken the rocks knowing they are Japanese territory.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pacifist

    I'm shocked. You are making a story.

    Was there a footnote in SF Treaty Draft?

    Show me the document with footnote related to Rusk Note.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty ending World War II in the Pacific does not include any language regarding sovereignty over Dokdo, the islets situated in the East Sea/Sea of Japan between Korea and Japan. Earlier drafts had addressed this issue, but language on Dokdo was omitted because of the urgency of completing the Peace Treaty and the outbreak of the Korean War. Earlier documents issued by the Allied Powers had separated Dokdo from Japan's main islands, Korea has strong historical evidence to support its claim to the islets and it has exercised effective occupation over them since the early 1950s. Japan agreed to a Normalization Treaty with Korea in 1965 without insisting on any language referring to Dokdo. Although Japan continues to protest Korea's occupation of Dokdo, its claim is not strengthened by absence of any reference to these islets in the text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved


    http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/4/741.abstract

    ReplyDelete