"The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).”Chosun Ilbo of South Korea made a front page report "Discovery of the Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory" on January 3 at the beginning of the New Year. Theｙ are "the Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24"and "Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4" in 1951, and the name of Takeshima is seen along with Ogasawara Islands and the Iwo-to islands, etc. as islands excluded from Japan.
However, these two laws do not offer any evidences that Japanese Government excluded Takeshima from a "Japanese territory". As Yomiuri Shimbun January 7 may tell, "The laws in concern only for the range where the administrative power of Japanese Government under the occupation during that time reaches to be shown, and is not showing of the range of Japanese territory" (Northeast Asia Division) as an opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese government under the occupation of the Allied Powers army at that time in 1951 only followed the clause 3 of SCAPIN677 of General Headquarters/ Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, which included Takeshima in "Region excluded from the range in Japan" on the administration. It was unrelated to the range in the territory as the instruction was described clearly in clause 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."
Chosun Ilbo stretch the meaning of parts in The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4, and it reported that "Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory". Korea's emeritus professor 金燦奎 of 慶熙 University even made a statement which has illogical leap. He claimed "Japan recovered sovereignty by the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into effect on April 28, 1952. The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet office, No.24 was finally revised on July 8, 1961 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 was on June 26 , 1968. Those two laws were revised finally way after the Japanese recovery of the sovereignty. Unlike SCAPIN 677 above, Japanese government independently decided those revision without the influence of military administration. The excavation of these laws exactly make our standpoint advantageous in the Dokdo issue." ("Segye Times" Internet dated January 6 version)
However, Mr. Kim's logic turned out to be the theory which urges Korean interpretation of SCAPIN677 actually to be corrected. Korean claim SCAPIN677 Takeshima from Japanese territory. As Prof. Kim pointed out, laws in concern originally defined the islands excluded to be (1) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Aki-yuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan island. (2)Ogasawara(Bonin) and Iwo Island Groups (3)Utsuryo (Ullung) island, Take island and Quelpart (Cheju) Island, but the ordinance of Ministry of Finance no.4 which was revised on June 26, 1968 dropped "Ogasawara and Iwo Island Groups".
It is because the day June 26, 1968 when the ordinance of Ministry of Finance no.4 was revised, is the exact day when Ogasawara Islands and the Iwo islands where the United States had been exercising the administrative right were restored to Japan. This is the concrete evidence that those islands which were excluded from Japanese sphere "on administrative purpose"by SCAPIN677 were not actually "excluded" from the territory of Japan. In fact, the area which were also defined as "excluded from Japanese sphere ", such as the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude (including Kuchinoshima island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Nazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands [including the Daito (Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Valece Vela (Okino-tori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Sangos (Nakano-tori) Islands], were returned to Japanese administration later with some exception. Then, naturally, the remaining territorial issue becomes Northern Territories issue, which currently in dispute between Russia, the Kurile Islands, and Takeshima.
This time, Korea's raising issue of Takeshima in two old Japanese laws actually gave us an good opportunity to confirm the fact that Takeshima in clause 3 of SCAPIN677 didn't exclude Takeshima from Japanese territory at all. Here, one of the grounds that South Korea insists on sovereignty of Takeshima disappeared once again.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第17回 昭和26年の「総理府令24号」と「大蔵省令4号」について 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”
The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory”
The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."
"Old Japanese Document Shows Dokdo Is Korean Territory"
Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers (Choson Ilbo)
1946 - SCAPIN 677 (History of SF Peace Treaty #1)
1953 - Jul 22 - US Doc. Reconfirms Dean Rusk Letter (Memorandum by Mr. Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs）
1954 - Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East
Good job Kaneganese!
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Korean media always makes a great fuss about such a groundless news.
I think the journalists are intelligent people, at least they should have graduated from some universities or colleges, however they don't seem to be "intelligent"...why?
Why do they always forget the basis as journalists? Do they play as fools intentionally, or ..???
Thanks, pacifist
ReplyDeleteIf you finde any mistake, please let me know.
Will the reporter of the Chosun Ilbo who wrote that article still believe that the article is right?
ReplyDeletechaamiey,
ReplyDeleteI read your blog that Donga-ilbo reported that Korean government is cautious about the documents' value as a evidence. It is apparent that Korean government know what it really mean. Was Choson-ilbo tricked into writing "飛ばし記事", or did they do it intentionally?
Anyway, this kind of streaching the meaning of the law degrades Korean intellectuals' credibility.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteIf they did it intentionally as a flatter to anti-Japan parties within Korea, it is an insult to true journalism, isn't it?
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteI do not think they did it intentionally.
They believe SCAPIN677 approved Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean Land.
Of course it is wrong interpretation.
The wrong premise obstructs logical thought,I suppose.
As usual Professor Shimojo is dead wrong.
ReplyDeleteHis analogy between Takeshima the aforementioned islands is way off.
Japan retained residual sovereignty on the islands Professor Shimojo is talking about. Article Three of the San Francisco Peace Treaty allowed the U.S. to administer over those islands with agreed joint-trusteeships.
Article Three States of the San Francisco Peace Treaty States,
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.
This is not the case with Dokdo Island. Dokdo Takeshima was excluded from Japanese territory with no residual sovereignty.
By the terms chapter 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
The definition of Japanese territory was elaborated upon in Scapin 677.
3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan(Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo(Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks( Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude(including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands including the Daito(Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) Islands, and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.
It's not surprising Professor Shimojo forgot to mention article 5. Most slippery right wing Japanese activists usually do. Scapin 677 states.
5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.
Article 6 was inserted so Allied Command could make any changes to the definition of Japan if need be.
John Foster Dulles made it publically clear that as far as the Allied Powers were concerned the definition of Japanese territory had been set. Dokdo Takeshima was excluded from Japan and the San Fran Peace Treaty concluded as such. He stated more than once if Japan had a problem with the decisions rendered she could use other measures outside of the treaty.
Dulles' speech at the Japan Peace Treaty states.
Dulles-Speech
"What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II deals with that. Japan formally ratifies the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms, provisions which, so far as Japan is concerned, were actually carried into effect 6 years ago.
"...The Potsdam Surrender Terms constitute the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which, Japan and the Allied Powers as a whole are bound. There have been some private understandings between some Allied Governments; but by these Japan was not bound, nor were other Allies bound. Therefore, the treaty embodies article 8 of the Surrender Terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty should be limited to Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. The renunciations contained in article 2 of chapter II strictly and scrupulously conform to that surrender term.
Some question has been raised as to whether the geographical name "Kurile Islands" mentioned in article 2 (c) includes the Habomai Islands. It is the view of the United States that it does not. If, however, there were a dispute about this, it could be referred to the International Court of Justice under article 22.
Some Allied Powers suggested that article 2 should not merely delimit Japanese sovereignty according to Potsdam, but specify precisely the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories. This, admittedly, would have been neater. But it would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers. We had either to give Japan peace on the Potsdam Surrender Terms or deny peace to Japan while the Allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is prepared, and required, to give up. Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty.
Article 3 deals with the Ryukyus and other islands to the south and southeast of Japan. These, since the surrender, have been under the sole administration of the United States.
Several of the Allied Powers urged that the treaty should require Japan to renounce its sovereignty over these islands in favor of United States sovereignty. Others suggested that these islands should be restored completely to Japan.
In the face of this division of Allied opinion, the United States felt that the best formula would be to permit Japan to retain residual sovereignty, while making it possible for these islands to he brought into the United Nations trusteeship system, with the United States as administering authority..."
So you see, Potsdam and then Scapin 677 played a key role in excluding Dokdo from Japan. However the as of the signing of the treaty, the terms of Scapin 677 still were in effect with regard to the definition of Japanese territory. Any doubt about territories, Potsdam Rules.
The Japanese Takeshima lobbyists have been wrongfully using CONFIDENTIAL memorandums as representative of U.S. or Allied policy (Rusk papers)
Dulles' stance was "Japan territory is defined. We are done with this issue. Got a problem? Deal with it yourselves we're outta here.
John Foster Dulles' public statements were representative of official U.S. policy. Not only did help draft the Japan Peace Treaty he was signatory. So although the U.S. supported Japan secretly regarding Takeshima, Dulles made it clear with regard to territory, Potsdam was the only agreement that had the legal clout to bind Japan and the Allies.
Dulles-Message-1
Dulles-Message-2
Kanganese, you should correct the information by Professor Shimojo. As you see he is just a lobbyist. If you don't have the integrity to scrutinize his data before you translate and post, then so are you.
So, you are insisting that Izu islands, Nansei islands, Ogasawara islands etc are out of Japan's territory? Are you sure? What about Okinawa? What aboout Iwojima?
ReplyDeleteWhat a wild thought!
No Pacifist, the Izu Islands were included in the amended version of Scapin 677 as well as the Nanpo Islands and including Lot's Wife (Sofu Gan) This was on March 26 1946. The again revised SCAPIN 677 dated December 5, 1951 returned the islands Kagoshima Ten Village Islands to Japanese sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteThe other islands Nansei. Ogasawaras (Bonin) etc., are also covered under Article Three of the Japan Peace Treaty (SFPT) in which the U.S. administered over the islands but Japan retained residual sovereignty in these cases.
Okinawa Island is part of the Southern Ryukyus. and Nansei (Northern Ryukyus) are also mentioned in Article Three. Iwo Jima is part of the Ogasawara Island (Bonin Islands) group also covered under Article Three of SFPT. Some of these islands were since given back to Japan.
Dokdo Takeshima was separated from Japan's territory by Postdam, then again by the Scapin 677 and finally by the amended Potsdam aka the Japan Peace Treaty. Only an international treaty or a bilateral agreement between Korea and Japan change that. John Foster Dulles stated this fact.
Dulles should know, he drafted and signed the Japan Peace Treaty and publicly stated what I've said above. Read the above again Pacifist
Japanese Takeshima lobbyists would be better off sticking to the facts, public official statements and written text of the treaties. Instead Japan's MOFA (and this website) have slyly resorted to putting their spin on confidential memorandums that have neither any bearing nor legal effect. This is shameful lobbying.